
. ^ 



^v 









'♦..i'' aO 



ife-. %.^^ :Mm^ X/ /.^^^ \..^^ ^^«^= 




















v-o' 





^ c,'^" .^#^M^^ '^. ,.^' /^^^a'- '"<*. ^-^ 







^^<^^ • 

5,^"-. 














^°^ 




'hV 



^°-nf.. 




<^^ 'o • A 



^^0' 



V"^\**'' V~^"'%°' '%''^?^\/ ''V 
















o* <^ ^^ 



>\ 







^^ ,^^ /: 



xf ^ 




o ^ 




L^ 






^o 




'bV 



*°-n*.. 



.0' 








w. • • • A" f - - H ' ' .<t,' °p 




'^0 






























^-^^^' 










- A 



"^^.s^ 



^^^-^c^. 




^^0^ 










".p_ .^' 






^oV^ 



A^ O - » , = 





m 



llllllllllMIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllll 



IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIinilllMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 



DEMOCRATIC 

tAMPAiGN ^ Book 



Congressional Elections, 1890. 



ANALYSIS OF THE MOST CONSPICUOUS ACTS OF THE FIRST 
SESSION, FIFTY-FIRST CONGRESS. 



BY AUTHORITY OF 

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL COMMFTTEE. 



Ramsey & Bisbee, Printers and Binders, Washington, D. C. 

Illllllllllllllililll llllllllllillllllJIilillllllillllllllliniiiKIIIIIIIIIIII iillMIII IIIIIIIIIISIIIEIiilllllllllllllllllillillllllllillliM 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiit-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiEiiiiii 



(FIFTY-FIRST CONGRESS), 

No. 224 NEW JERSEY AYENUE S. E., WASHINGTON, D. C. 



Hon. R. P. FLOWER, Chairman. JAMES L. NORRIS, Treasurer. T. 0. TOWLES, Secretary. 

NEW YORK CITY. WASHINGTON, D. C. JEFFERSON CITY, MO. 



EXECUTIVE COIVEIMIIXTEE. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

H.F. Flower, Chairman. Levi Maish, W.I.Hayes, John F. Andrew, J. B. McCreary, 

N. C. Blanchard, J. R. Whiting, S. S. Yoder, Samuel Fowlek, C. A. O. McClellan. 

SENATE. 

A. P. Gorman, Chairman. F. M. Cockrell, J. R. McPhersox, J-. K. Jones, J. C. S. Blackiurx. 



COMMITTEE 



William C. Oates, Abbeville, Ala. 
Thomas C. McRae, Prescott, Ark. 
Thomas J. Clunie, San Francisco, Cal. 
James B. Grant, Denver, Col. 
Washington P. Willcox, Chester, Conn. 
John B. Pennington, Dover, Del. 
Robert H. M. Davidson, Quincy, Fla.. 
Henry H. Carlton, Athens, Ga. 
Scott Wike, Pittsfield, III. 
Charles A. 0. McClellan, Auburn, Ind. 
AValter I. Hayes, Clinton, loiva. 
S. F. Neeley, Leavenworth, Kan. 
James B. McCreary, Richmond, Ky. 
Newton C. Blanchard, Shreveport, La. 
William L. Putnam, Portland, Maine. 
Barnes Compton, Laurel, Md. 
John F. Andrew, Boston, Mass. 
Justin R. Whiting, St. Clair, Mich. 
James J. Hitt, St, Paul, Minn. 
Charles E. Hooker, Jackson, Miss. 
Richard P. Bland, Lebanon, Mo. 
Samuel T. Hauser, Helena, Mont. 
John A. McShane, Omaha,^Neh, 
George W. Cassidy, Eureka, Nev. 



Luther H. McKinney, Manchester, K. H. 
Samuel Fowler, Newton, N. J. 
Benjamin H. Bunn, Rocky Mount, N. C. 
L. M. McCormick, Grand Fork, N. Dak. 
Samuel S. Yoder, Lima, Ohio. 
John M. Gearrin, Portland, Ore. 
Levi Maish, York, Pa. 
Oscar Lapham, Providence, R. I. 
Samuel Dibble, Orangeburg, S. C. 
L. G. Johnson, Aberdeen, S. Dak. 
Benton McMillin, Carthage, Tenn. 
Constantine B. Kilgore, WilVs Point, Tc.ai.^ 
Bradley B. Smalley, Burlington, 17. 
Edward C. Venable, Pctershirgh, Va. 
Charles H. Voorhees, Colfa.r, Wa.th. 
William L. Wilson, Charleston, W. V((. 
Charles Barwig, Mayville, Wis. 
Marcus A. Smith, | To wft.s^onc, Ariz. 
Edward A. Stevenson, Boise City, Idaho. 
Antonio Joseph, Ojo CaUente, New Me.iico. 
John T. Caine, Salt Lake, Utah. 
George W. Baxter, Cheyenne, Wyo. 
Thos. a. Stockslager, Guthrie, Oklahoma. 
James L. Norris, Washington, D. C. 



DEMOCRATIC 

CAMPAIGS BOOK 



Congressional Election 1890 



BY AUTHORITY OK 

DEMOCRATIC C0]!fGRESSI0ML COMMITTEE 

Thank God the House of Representatives is no longer a deliberative body. — 
Speaker Reed's Interview. 

We must do our own registering, our own counti7ig and our own certifica- 
tion. — Speaker Reed's Pittsburgh Speech. 

What do we care about ad valorems ? — Hon. Wm. McKinley's Speech. 

We have not been so muc-h concerned about the prices of the articles we con 
sume, as we have been to encourage a system of ho^ne production. — Ways and 
Means Committee's Report on the Tariff Bill. 

But there is not a section or a line in the entire [McKinley] bill that will open 
a market for another bushel of wheat or another barrel of pork. — Secretary 
Blaine's Letter to Senator Frye, July it, i8go. 



K^ I 



;X\<^ 



?/. 



^t^^ 



NOTICE. 



This is not a hand-book of general political information. Compiled 
almost entirely from the Congressional Record for the first session of 
the Fifty-first Congress, it relates almost entirely to the more important 
subjects considered during that session. 

The facts and figures in it are mainly those that were adduced in 
argument on these various measures, and depend for their authenticity 
upon official documents and such other creditable repositories of inform- 
ation as are generally used by Senators and Representatives in Congress- 
ional debate. Statements of fact found in the text either rest upon the 
same authority, have their origin indicated, or are adopted because of the 
apparently reliable character of their sources. 

Arguments in the text are intended to be merely suggestive, and 
depend upon themselves for their acceptability. 






TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 

I — Pahty Platforms, ... ....,, 3 

II- — L411CENY OF A State, . , , 19 

III— The Force Bill, ... ..,.,.. 25 

IV— Speaker Ebed's Rules and Rulings, . , , . . 91 

V — New States, , , 119 

VI — Contested Elections, , . 141 

VII— Tariff Taxation, . . , . . ,187 

VIII — Special Orders, .... 817 

IX— Trusts, 223 

X— "A Pauper Pension Act," .„,,... 325 

XI — Statement of Assets and Liabilities, . , . . . 328 

XII — Subsidies to Ship-Owners, ... .... 829 

XIII — Republican Favoritism for National Banks, . . . 351 

XIV — The Vanishing Surplus, . . . ... < . . 354 

XV — Labor Legislation, 3()1 

XVI— Public Lands, . ... .369 

XVII — Demonetization of Silver, 374 

XVIII — Original Packages, . . . . . . . . . 398 

XIX— Popular Vote, . . . . ' 402 

XX— Index, 408 



PARTY PLATFORMS. 



I. 

Democratic Platform of 1888 — Adopted in National Convention at 

St. Louis, June 7. 

The Democratic party of the United States, in national conven- 
tion assembled, renews the pledge of its fidelity to Democratic faith 
and reaffirms the platform adopted by its representatives in the con- 
vention of 1884, and endorses the views expressed by President 
Cleveland in his last annual message to Congress, as the correct in- 
terpretation of that platform upon the question of tariff reduction; 
and also endorses the efforts of our Democratic representatives in 
Congress to secure a reduction of excessive taxation. 

Chief among its principles of party faith, are the maintenance of 
an indissoluble union of free and indestructible states now about to 
enter upon its second century of unexampled progress and renown; 
devotion is a plan of government regulated by a v/ritten constitution 
strictly specifying every granted power and expressly reserving to 
the States or people the entire ungranted residue of power; the en- 
couragement of a jealous popular vigilance, directed to all who have 
been chosen for brief terms to enact and execute the laws and are 
charged with the dignity of preserving peace, insuring equalitj^ and 
establishing justice. 

The Democratic party welcome an exacting scrutiny of the ad- 
ministration of the executive power, which four years ago was com- 
mitted to its trust in the election of Grover Cleveland President of 
the United States; and it challenges the most searching inquiry con- 
cerning its fidelity and devotion to the pledges which then invited 
the suffrages of the people. 

During a most critical period of our financial affairs, resulting 
from over-taxation, the anomalous condition of our currency, and a 
public debt unmatured, it has, by the adoption of a wise and con- 



4 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

servative course, not only averted disaster, but greatly promoted the 
prosperity of the people. 

It has reversed the improvident and unwise policy of the Repub- 
lican party touching the public domain, and has reclaimed from cor- 
porations and syndicates, alien and domestic, and restored to the 
people nearly 100,000,000 of acres of valuable land, to be sacredly 
held as homesteads for our citizens. 

While carefully guarding the interest of the taxpayers, and con- 
forming strictly to the principles of justice and equity, it has paid 
out more for pensions and bounties to the soldiers and sailors of the 
republic than was ever paid before during an equal period. 

By intelligent management and a judicious and economical ex- 
penditure of the public money, it has set on foot the reconstruction 
of the American navy upon a system which forbids the recurrence of 
scandal and insures successful results. 

It has adopted and consistently pursued a fifm and prudent 
foreign policy, preserving peace with all nations, while scrupulously 
maintaining all the rights and interests of our own government and 
people at home and abroad. 

The exclusion from our shores of Chinese laborers has been ef- 
fectually secured under the provisions of a treaty, the operation of 
which has been postponed by the action of a Republican majority in 
the Senate. 

Honest reform in the civil service has been inaugurated and 
maintained by President Cleveland, and he has brought the public 
service to the highest standard of efficiency, not only by rule and 
precept, but by the example of his own untiring and unselfish admin- 
istration of public affairs. 

In every branch and department of the Government under Dem- 
ocratic control the rights and the welfare of the people have been 
guarded and defended; every public interest has been protected, and 
the equality of all our citizens before the law, without regard to race 
or color, has been steadfastly maintained. 

Upon its record thus exhibited and upon the pledge of a contin- 
uance to the people of the benefits of good government, the National 
Democracy invokes a renewal of popular trust by the re-election of 
a Chief Magistrate who is faithful, able and prudent. 

They invoke an addition to that trust by the transfer also to the 
Democracy of the entire legislative power. 

The Republican party, controlling the Senate, and resisting in 
both houses of Congress a reformation of unjust and unequal tax laws, 
which have outlasted the necessities of war and are now undermin- 



PARTY PLATFORMS. 

ing the abundance of a long peace, deny to the people equality 
before the law and the fairness and the justice which are their right. 
Thus the cry of American labor for a better share in the rewards of 
industry is stifled with false pretenses; enterprise is fettered and 
bound down to home markets; capital is discouraged with doubt, 
and unequal, unjust laws can neither be properly amended nor re- 
pealed. 

The Democratic party will continue, with all the power confided 
to it, the struggle to reform these laws in accordance with the pledge^ 
of its last platform, endorsed at the ballot-box by the suffrages of the 
people. 

Of all the industrious freemen of our land an immense majority, 
including every tiller of the soil, gain no advantage from the tax 
laws, but the price of nearly everything they buy is increased by the 
favoritism of an unequal system of tax legislation. 

All unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation. 

It is repugnant to the creed of Democracy that by such taxation 
the cost of the necessaries of life should be unjustifiably increased to 
all our people. 

Judged by Democratic principles, the interests of the people are 
betrayed when by unnecessary taxation trusts and combinations are 
permitted and fostered, which, while unduly enriching the few that 
combine, rob the body of our citizens, by depriving them as pur- 
chasers, of the benefits of natural competition. Kvery Democratic 
rule of govermental action is violated when through unnecessary tax- 
ation a vast sum of money, far beyond the needs of an economical ad- 
ministration, is drawn from the people and the channels of trade and 
accumulated as a demoralizing surplus in the national treasury. 

The money now lying idle in the Federal treasury resulting from 
superfluous taxation, amounts to more than $125,000,000, and the 
surplus collected is reaching the sum of more than $60,000,000 
annually. 

Debauched by this immense temptation, the remedy of the Re- 
publican party is to meet and exhaust by extravagant appropriations 
and expenditures, whether constitutional or not, the accumulations 
of extravagant taxation. 

The Democratic policy is to enforce frugality in public expense 
and abolish unnecessary taxation. 

Our established domestic industries and enterprises should not, 
and need not, be endangered by a reduction and correction of the 
burdens of taxation. On the contrary, a fair and careful revision of 
our tax laws, with due allowance for the difference between the wages 



C DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

of American and foreign labor, must promote and encourage every 
branch of such industries and enterprises, by giving them assurance 
of an extended market and steady and continuous operation. 

In the interest of American labor, which should in no event be 
neglected, the revision of our tax laws contemplated by the Demo- 
cratic party, would promote the advantage of such labor, by cheap- 
ening the cost of the necessaries of life in the home of every working 
man, and at the same time securing to him steady and remunerative 
employment. 

Upon this question of tariff reform, so closely concerning every 
phase of our national life, and upon every question involved in the 
problem of good government, the Democratic party submits its prin- 
ciples and professions in the intelligent suffrages of the American 
people. 

Resolved, That this convention hereby indorses and recommends 
the early passage of the bill for the reduction of the revenue now 
pending in the House of Representatives. 

Resolved, That a just and liberal policy should be pursued in refer- 
ence to the Territories; that right of self government is inherent in 
the people and guaranteed under the Constitution; that the Territo- 
ries of Washington, Dakota, Montana, and New-Mexico are by virtue 
of population and development entitled to admission into the Union 
as States, and we unqualifiedly condemn the course of the Republi- 
can part}^ in refusing statehood and self-government to their people. 

Resolved, That we express our cordial sympathy with the strug- 
gling people of all nations in their effort to secure for themselves the 
inestimable blessings of self-government and civil and religious lib- 
erty, and we especially declare our sympathy with the efforts of those 
noble patriots who, led by Gladstone and Parnell, have conducted 
their grand and peaceful contest for home rule in Ireland. 



II. 

Democratic Platform Adopted at Chicago, July 10, 1884, and 
Reaffirmed at St. Louis, July 7, 1888. 

The Democratic Party of the Union, through its representatives 
in National Convention assembled, recognizes that, as the nation 
grows older, new issues are born of time and progress, and old issues 
perish. But the fundamental principles of the Democracy, approved 
by the united voice of the people, remain, and will ever remain, as 
t'.ie best and only security for the continuance of free government. 



PARTY PLATFORMS. I 

The preservation of personal rights ; the equality of all citizens before 
the law; the reserved rights of the States, and the supremacy of the 
Federal Government within the limits of the Constitution, will ever 
form the true basis of our liberties, and can never be surrendered 
without destroying that balance of rights and powers which enables 
a continent to be developed in peace, and social order to be main- 
tained by means of local self-government. 

But it is indispensable for the practical application and enforce- 
ment of those fundamental principles that the government should not 
always be controlled by one political party. Frequent change of ad- 
ministration is as necessary as constant recurrence to popular will. 
Otherwise abuses grow, and the government, instead of being carried 
on for the general welfare, becomes an instrumentality for imposing 
heavy burdens on the many who are governed for the benefit of the 
few who govern. Public servants thus become arbitrary rulers. 

This is now the condition of the country. Hence a change is 
demanded. The Republican party, so far as principle is concerned, 
is a reminiscence ; in practice it is an organization for enriching 
those who control its machinery. The frauds and jobbery which 
have been brought to light in every department of the government 
are sufficient to have called for reform within the Republican party; 
yet those in authority, made reckless by the long possession of power, 
have succumbed to its corrupting influence, and have placed in nomi- 
nation a ticket against which the independent portion of the party are 
in open revolt. 

Therefore a change is demanded. Such a change was alike nec- 
essary in 1876, but the will of the people was then defeated by fraud 
which can* never be forgotten, nor condoned. Again, in 1880, the 
change demanded by the people was defeated by the lavish use of 
money contributed by unscrupulous contractors and shameless job- 
bers, who had bargained for unlawful profits, or for high office. 

The Republican party, during its legal, its stolen, and its bought 
tenures of power, has steadily decayed in moral character and politi- 
cal capacity. 

Its platform promises are now a list of its past failures. 

It demands the restoration of our navy. It has squandered hun- 
dreds of millions to create a navy that does not exist. 

It calls upon Congress to remove the burdens under which Ameri- 
can shipping has been depressed. It imposed and has continued 
those burdens. 

It professes the policy of reserving the public lands for small 
holdings by actual settlers. It has given away the people's heritage 



8 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

till now a few railroads and non-resident aliens, individual and cor- 
porate, possess a larger area than that of all our farms between the 
two seas. 

It professes a preference for free institutions. It organized and 
tried to legalize a control of State elections by Federal troops. 

It professes a desire to elevate labor. It has subjected American 
workingmen to the competition of convict and imported contract 
labor. 

It professes gratitude to all who were disabled or died in the war, 
leaving widows and orphans. It left to a Democratic House of Rep- 
resentatives the first effort to equalize both bounties and pensions. 

It proffers a pledge to correct the irregularities of our tariff. It 
created and has continued them. Its own Tariff Commission con- 
fessed the need of more than twenty per cent, reduction. Its Con- 
gress gave a reduction of less than four per cent. 

It professes the protection of American manufactures. It has 
subjected them to an increasing flood of manufactured goods, and a 
hopeless competition with manufacturing nations, not one of which 
taxes raw materials. 

It professes to protect all American industries. It has impover- 
ished many to subsidize a few. 

It professes the protection of American labor. It has depleted 
the returns of American agriculture — an industry followed by half 
our people. 

It professes the equality of all men before the law. Attempting 
to fix the status of colored citizens, the acts of its Congress were over- 
set by the decisions of its courts. 

It ' * accepts anew the duty of leading in the work of progress 
and reform." Its caught criminals are permitted to escape through 
contrived delays or actual connivance in the prosecution. Honey- 
combed with corruption, outbreaking exposures no longer shock its 
moral sense. Its honest members, its independent journals no longer 
maintain a successful contest for authority in its counsels or a veto 
upon bad nominations. 

That change is necessary is proved by an existing surplus of 
more than $100,000,000, which has yearly been collected from a suf- 
fering people. Unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation. We de- 
nounce the Republican party for having failed to relieve the people 
from crushing war taxes which have paralyzed business, crippled 
industry and deprived labor of employment and just reward. 

The Democracy pledges itself to purify the administration from 
corruption, to restore economy, to revive respect for law, and to 



PARTY PLATFORMS. 9 

reduce taxation to the lowest limit consistent with due regard to the 
preservation of the faitA of the nation to its creditors and pensioners. 

Knowing full well, however, that legislation affecting the occu- 
pations of the people should be cautious and conservative in method, 
not in advance of public opinion, but responsive to its demands, the 
Democratic party is pledged to revise the tariff in a spirit of fairness 
to all interests. 

But in making reduction in taxes, it is not proposed to injure 
any domestic industries, but rather to promote their healthy growth. 
From the foundation of this government taxes collected at the 
custom house have been the chief source of federal revenue. Such 
they must continue to be. Moreover, many industries have come to 
rely upon legislation for successful continuance, so that any change 
of law must be at every step regardful of the labor and capital thus 
involved. The process of reform must be subject in the execution 
of this plain dictate of justice. 

All taxation shall be limited to the requirements of economical 
government. The necessary reduction in taxation can, and must be 
effected without depriving American labor of the ability to compete 
successfully with foreign labor, and without imposing lower rates of 
duty than will be ample to cover any increased cost of production 
which may exist in consequence of the higher rate of wages prevail- 
ing in this country. 

Sufficient revenue to pay all the expenses of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, economically administered, including pensions, interest and 
principal of the public debt, can be got, under our present system of 
taxation, from custom house taxes on fewer imported articles, bear- 
ing heaviest on articles of necessity. 

We, therefore, denounce the abuses of the existing tariff, and, 
subject to the prece ding limitations, we demand that Federal taxa- 
tion shall be exclusively for public purposes, and shall not exceed 
the needs of the Government, economically administered. 

The system of direct taxation known as ** internal revenue" is a 
war tax, and so long as the law continues the money derived there- 
from should be sacredly devoted to the relief of the people from the 
remaining burdens of the war and be made a fund to defray the 
expenses of the care and comfort of worthy soldiers disabled in the 
line of duty in the wars of the republic, and for the payment of such 
pensions as Congress may from time time grant to such soldiers, a 
like fund for the sailors having been already provided, and any sur- 
plus should be paid into the treasury. 



iO DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

We favor an American continental policy based upon more inti- 
mate commercial and political relations with the fifteen sister repub- 
lics of North, Central and South America, but entangling alliances 
with none. 

We believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the 
Constitution, and a circulating medium convertible into such money 
without loss. 

Asserting the equality of all men before the law, we hold that it 
is the duty of the government, in its dealings with the people, to 
mete out equal and exact justice to all citizens of whatever nativity, 
race, color, or persuasion — religious or political. 

We believe in a free ballot and a fair count, and we recall to the 
memory of the people the noble struggle of the Democrats in the 
Forty-fifth and Forty-sixth Congresses, by which a reluctant Repub- 
lican opposition was compelled to assent to legislation making every- 
where illegal the presence of troops at the polls, as a conclusive proof 
that a Democratic administration will preserve liberty with order. 

The selection of Federal ofiicers for the territor}^ should be re- 
stricted to citizens previously resident therein. 

We oppose sumptuary laws which vex the citizen and interfere 
with individual liberty; we favor honest civil service reform, and the 
Compensation of all United States ofiicers by fixed salaries; the sep- 
aration of church and state, and the diff'usion of free education by 
common schools, so that every child in the land maj^ be taught the 
rights and duties of citizenship. 

While we favor all legislation that will tend to the equitable dis- 
tribution of property, to the prevention of monopol)', and to the 
strict enforcement of individual rights against corporal abuses, we 
hold that the welfare of society depends upon a scrupulous regard for 
the rights of property as defined by law. 

We believe that labor is best rewarded where it is freest and 
most enlightened. It should therefore be fostered and cherished. 
We favor the repeal of all laws restricting the free action of labor, 
and the enactment of laws by which labor organizations may be in- 
corporated, and of all such legislation as will tend to enlighten the 
people as to the true relations of capital and labor. 

We believe that the public lands ought, as far as possible, to be 
kept as homesteads for actual settlers; that all unearned lands here- 
tofore improvidently granted to railroad corporations by the action 
of the Republican party should be restored to the public domain; 
and that no more grants of land shall be made to corporations or be 
allowed to fall into the ownership of alien absentees. 



PARTY PI.ATFORMS. 11 

We are opposed to all propositions which, •upon any pretext, 
woiild convert the General Government into a machine for collecting 
taxes to be distributed among the States or the citizens thereof. 

In reaffirming the declaration of the Democratic platform of 
1856, that " the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the 
Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned^ by the Constitution, 
which make ours the land of liberty and the asj^lum of the oppressed 
of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic 
faith," we nevertheless do not sanction the importation of foreign 
labor, or the admission of servile races, unfitted by habits, training, 
religion, or kindred for absorption into the great body of our people, or 
for the citizenship which our laws confer. American civilization de- 
mands that against the immigration or importation of Mongolians to 
these shores, our gates be closed. 

The Democratic party insists that it is the duty of this govern- 
ment to protect, with equal fidelity and vigilance, the rights of its 
citizens, native and naturalized, at home and abroad, and to the end 
that this protection may be assured. United States papers of naturali- 
zation, issued by courts of competent jurisdiction, must be respected 
by the executive and legislative departments of our own government 
and by all foreign powers. 

It is an imperative duty of this government to efficiently protect 
all the rights of persons and property of every American citizen in 
foreign lands, and demand and enforce full reparation for any inva- 
sion thereof. 

An American citizen is only responsible to his own government 
for any act done in his own country, or under her flag, and can onl^- 
be tried therefor on her own soil and according to her laws; and .^6 
power exists in this government to expatriate an American citizen 
to be tried in a foreign land for any such act. 

This country has never had a well-defined and executed foreign 
policy save under Democratic administration; that policy has ever 
been, in regard to foreign nations, so long as they do not act detrimental 
to the interest of the country or hurtful to our citizens, to let them 
alone; that as the result of this policy we recall the acquisition of 
Louisiana, Florida, California, and of the adjacent Mexican territory 
by purchase alone, and contrast these grand acquisitions of Demo- 
cratic statesmanship with the purchase of Alaska, the sole fruit of a 
Republican administration of nearly a quarter of a century. 

The Federal government should care for and improve the Mis- 
sissippi river and other great waterways of the republic, so as to se- 
cure for the interior States easy and cheap transportation to tide-water. 



12 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Under a long period of Democratic rule and policy our merchant 
marine was fast overtaking, and on the point of outstripping that of 
Great Britain. 

Under twenty years of Republican rule and policy our commerce 
has been left to British bottoms, and almost has the American flag 
been swept off the high seas. 

Instead of the Republican party's British policy we demand for 
the people of the United States an American policy. 

Under Democratic rule and policy our merchants and sailors, 
flying the stars and stripes in every port, successfully searched out a 
market for the varied products of American industry. 

Under a quarter of a century of Republican rule and policy, de- 
spite our manifest advantage over all other nations in high -paid labor, 
favorable climates and teeming soils; despite freedom of trade among 
all these United States ; despite their population by the foremost races 
of men, and an annual immigrqition of the young, thrifty and adven- 
turous of all nations; despite our freedom here from the inherited 
burdens of life and industry in old-world monarchies — their costly 
war navies, their vast tax-cotisuming, non-producing standing armies; 
despite their twenty years of peace — that Republican rule and policy 
have managed to surrender to Great Britain, along with our commerce, 
the control of the markets of the world. 

Instead of the Republican party's British policy, we demand, in 
behalf of the American Democracy, an American policy. 

Instead of the Republican party's discredited scheme and false 
pretense of friendship for American labor, expressed by imposing 
t^Y^es, we demand, in behalf of the Democracj^ freedom for American 
laoor by reducing taxes, to the end that these United States may com- 
pete with unhindered powers for the primacy among nations in all the 
arts of peace and fruits of liberty. 

With this statement of the hopes, principles and purposes of the 
Democratic party, the great issue of reform and change in adminis- 
tration is submitted to the people in calm confidence that the popular 
voice will pronounce in favor of new men, and new and more favora- 
ble conditions for the growth of industry, the extension of trade, the 
employment and due reward of labor and of capital, and the general 
v/elfare of the whole country. 



PARTY PLATFORMS. 13 

III. 

KepaMican Platform Apopted in National Convention at 
Chicago, June 21. 

The Republicans of the United States, assembled by their dele- 
gates in National Convention, pause on the threshold of their pro- 
ceedings to honor the memory of their first great leader, the immor- 
tal champion of liberty and the rights of the people — Abraham Lin- 
coln; and to cover, also, with wreaths of imperishable remembrance 
and gratitude the heroic names of our later leaders who have more 
recently been called away from our councils — Grant, Garfield, Arthur, 
lyOgan, Conkling. May their memories be faithfully cherished. We 
also recall with our greetings and with prayer for his recovery the 
name of one of our living heroes, whose memory will be treasured in 
the history both of Republicans and of the Republic — the name of that 
noble soldier and favorite child of victory, Philip H. Sheridan. In 
the spirit of those great leaders and of our own devotion to human 
liberty, and with that hostility to all forms of despotism and oppres- 
:sion which is the fundamental idea of the Republican party, we send 
fraternal congratulation to our fellow- Americans of Brazil upon their 
great act of emancipation, which completed the abolition of slavery 
throughout the two American continents. 

We earnestly hope that we may soon congratulate our fellow- 
citizens of Irish birth upon the peaceful recovery of Home Rule for 
Ireland. 

We reaffirm our unswerving devotion to the National Constitu- 
tion and to the indissoluble union of the States; to the autonomy 
reserved to the States under the Constitution; to the personal rights 
and liberties of citizens in all the States and Territories in the Union, 
and especially to the supreme and sovereign right of every lawful cit- 
izen, rich or poor, native or foreign born, white or black, to cast one 
free ballot in public elections and to have that ballot duly counted; 
we hold the free and honest popular ballot and the just and equal 
representation of all of the people to be the foundation of our repub- 
lican Government and demand effective legislation to secure the integ- 
rity and purity of election, which are the fountains of all public 
authority. 

We charge that the present administration and the Democratic 
majority in Congress owe their existence to the suppression of the 
ballot by a criminal nullification of the Constitution and laws of the 
United States; we are uncompromisingly in favor of the American 
.system of protection; we protest against its destruction, as proposed 



14 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

by the President and his party. They serve the interests of Europe; 
we will support the interests of America. We accept the issue and 
confidently appeal to the people for their judgment. 

The protective system must be maintained. Its abandonment 
has always been followed by general "disaster to all interests except 
those of the usurer and the sheriff. We denounce the Mills bill as 
destructive to the general business, the labor and the farming inter- 
ests of the country, and we heartily endorse the consistent and patri- 
otic action of the Republican Representatives in Congress in oppos- 
ing its passage. We condemn the proposition of the Democratic 
party to place wool on the free list, and we insist that the duties 
thereon shall be adjusted and maintained so as to furnish full and 
adequate protection to that industry. 

The Republican party would effect all needed reduction of the 
National revenue by repealing the taxes upon tobacco, which are an 
annoyance and a burden to agriculture, and the tax upon the spirits 
used in the arts and for mechanical purposes; and by such revision 
of the tariff laws as will tend to check imports of such articles as are 
produced by our people, the production of which gives employment 
to our labor, and release from import duties those articles of foreign 
production (except luxuries), the like of which can not be produced 
at home. 

If there shall still remain a larger revenue than is requisite for the 
wants of the Govern^ne^it, we favor the entire repeal of inter7ial taxes 
rather than the surrejider of any part of our protective system, at the joint 
behests of the whiskey trusts and the agents of the foreign manufacturers. 

We declare our hostility to the introduction into this country of 
foreign contract labor and of Chinese labor, alien to our civilization 
and Constitution, and we demand the rigid enforcement of the exist- 
ing law against it, and favor such immediate legislation as will ex- 
clude such labor from our shores. 

We declare our opposition to all combinations of capital organ- 
ized in trusts or otherwise to control arbitrarily the condition of trade 
among our citizens, and we recommend to Congress and the State 
lyCgislatures, in their respective jurisdictions, such legislation as will 
prevent the execution of all schemes to oppress the people by undue 
charges on their supplies, by unjust rates for the transportation of 
their products to market. We approve the legislation by Congress 
to prevent alike unjust burdens and unfair discriminations between" 
the States. 

We reaffirm the policy of appropriating the public lands of the 
United States to be homesteads for American citizens and settlers, 



PARTY PLATFORMS. 15 

not aliens, which the Republican party established in 1862 against 
the persistent opposition of Democrats in Congress, and which has 
brought our great Western domain into such magnificent develop- 
ment. The restoration of unearned railroad land grants to the pub- 
lic domain for the use of actual settlers, which was begun under the 
administration of President Arthur, should be continued. We deny 
that the Democratic party has ever restored one acre to the peo- 
ple, but declare that by the joint action of Republicans and Democrats 
about fifty millions of acres of unearned lands, originally granted for 
the construction of railroads, have been restored to the public domain in 
pursuance of the conditions inserted by the Republican party in the 
original grants. We charge the Democratic administration with 
failure to execute the laws securing to settlers title to their home- 
steads and with using appropriations made for that purpose to harrass 
innocent settlers with spies and prosecutions under the false pretense 
of exposing frauds and vindicating the l^w. 

The government by Congress of the Territories is based upon 
necessity only; to the end that they may become States in the Union; 
therefore whenever the conditions of population, material resources, 
public intelligence and morals are such as to insure a stable local 
government therein, the people of such Territories should be permit- 
ted as a right inherent in them the right to form for themselves con- 
stitutions and State governments, and be admitted into the Union. 
Pending the preparation for statehood all ofl&cers thereof should be 
selected from the bonafide residents and citizens of the Territory 
wherein they are to serve. South Dakota should of right be imme- 
diately admitted as a State under the constitution framed and adopted 
by her people, and we heartily endorse the action of the Republican 
Senate in twice passing bills for her admission. The refusal of the 
Democratic House of Representatives, for partisan purposes, to favor- 
ably consider these bills is a willful violation of the sacred American 
principle of local self government, and merits the condemnation of 
all just men. The pending bills in the Senate for acts to enable 
the people of Washington, North Dakota and Montana Territories to 
form constitutions and establish State governments shall be passed 
without unnecessary delay. The Republican party pledges itself 
to do all in its power to facilitate the admission of ^the Territo- 
ries of New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho and Arizona to the enjoyment 
of self government as States, such of them as are now qualified as 
soon as possible and the others as soon as they become so. 

The political power of the Mormon Church in the Territories, as 
exercised in the past, is a menace to free institutions, a danger no 



16 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Ignger to be suffered, therefore we pledge the Republican party to 
appropriate legislation, asserting the sovereignty of the nation in all 
Territories where the same is questioned, and in furtherance of that 
end to place upon the statute books legislation stringent enough to 
divorce the political from the ecclesiastical power and thus stamp out 
the attendant wickedness of polygamy. 

The Republican party is in favor of the use of both gold and sil- 
ver as money, and condemns the policy of the Democratic adminis- 
tration in its efforts to demonitize silver and the reduction of letter 
postage to one cent per ounce. 

In a republic like ours, where the citizen is the sovereign and the 
official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will 
of the people, it is important that the sovereign — the people — should 
possess intelligence. The free school is the promoter of that intelli- 
gence which is to preserve us a free nation. Therefore the State or 
nation, or both combined, should support free institutions of learn- 
ing sufficient to afford to every child growing up in the land the op- 
portunity of a good common schoolaeducation. 

We earnestly recommend that prompt action be taken by Con- 
gress in the enactment of such legislation as will best secure the re- 
habitation of our American merchant marine, and we protest against 
the passage by Congress of a free ship bill as calculated to work in- 
justice to labor by lessening the wages of those engaged in preparing 
materials as well as those directly employed in our shipyards. 

We demand appropriations for the early rebuilding of our navy, 
for the construction of coast fortifications and modern ordnance and 
other approved modern means of defense for the protection of our de- 
fenseless harbors and cities, for the payment of just pensions to our 
soldiers, for the necessary works of national importance in the im- 
provement of harbors and the channels of internal, coastwise and for- 
eign commerce, for the encouragement of the shipping interests of the 
Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific States, as well as for the payment of the 
maturing public debt. This policy will give employment to our labor,, 
activity to our various industries, increase the security of our coun- 
try, promote trade, open new and direct markets for our produce, and 
cheapen the cost of transportation. We affirm this to be far better 
for our country than the Democratic policy of loaning the Govern- 
ment's money, without interest, to pet banks. 

The conduct of foreign affairs by the present administration has 
been di.stinguished by its inefficiency and its cowardice, having with- 
drawn from the Senate all pending treaties offered by the Republican 
administration for the removal of foreign burdens and restrictions 



PARTY PLATFORMS. 17 

Upon our commerce, and force its extension into better markets. It 
has neither effected nor proposed any others in their stead. Profess- 
ing adherence to the Monroe doctrine, it has seen with idle com- 
placency the extension of foreign influence in Central America and 
of foreign trade everywhere among our neighbors. It has refused to 
charter, sanction or encourage any American organization for con- 
structing the Nicaragua Canal, a work of vital importance to the 
maintenance of the Monroe doctrine, and of our national influence 
in Central and South America, and necessary for the development of 
trade with our Pacific territory, with South America, and with the 
islands and further coasts of the Pacific ocean. 

We arraign the present Democratic administration for its weak 
and unpatriotic treatment of the fisheries question and its pusillani- 
mous surrender of the essential privileges to which our fishing vessels, 
are entitled in Canadian ports under the treaty of 1818, the reciprocal 
maritime legislation of 1830 and the comity of nations, and which 
Canadian fishing vessels receive in the ports of the United States.. 
We condemn the policy of the present administration and the Demo- 
cratic majority in Congress toward our fisheries as unfriendly and 
conspicuously unpatriotic, and as tending to destroy a valuable 
national industry and an indispensable resource of defense against a 
foreign enemy. 

The name of American applies alike to all citizens of the Repub^ 
lie, and imposes upon all alike the same obligation of obedience to 
the laws. At the same time that citizenship is and must be the pano- 
ply and safeguard of him who wears it, and protect him, whether 
high or low, rich or poor, in all his civil rights. It should and must 
afford him protection at home, and follow him and protect him abroad 
in whatever land he may be on a lawful errand. 

The men who abandoned the Republican party in 1884 and con- 
tinued to adhere to the Democratic party have deserted not only the 
cause of honest government, of sound finance, or freedom or purity 
of the ballot, but especially have deserted the cause of reform in the 
civil service. We will not fail to keep our pledges because they have 
broken theirs, or because their candidate has broken his. We there- 
fore repeat our declaration of 1884, to wit: "The reform of the civil 
service, auspiciously begun under the Republican administration, 
should be completed by the further extension of the reform ,system 
already established by law to all the grades of the service to which 
it is applicable; the spirit and purpose of the reform should be ob- 
served in all executive appointments, and all laws at variance with 
the object of existing reform legislation should be repealed, to the 



18 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

end that the dangers to free institutions which lurk in the power of 
official patronage may be wisely and ejQfectively avoided. 

The gratitude of the nation to the defenders of the Union cannot 
he measured by laws. The legislation of Congress should conform 
to the pledge made by a loyal people and be so enlarged and extended 
as to provide against the possibility that any man who wore the Fed- 
eral uniform shall become an inmate of an almshouse or dependent 
tipon private charity ^ In the presence of an overflowing Treasury 
it would be a public scandal to do less for those whose valorous ser- 
vice preserved the Government. We denounce the hostile spirit 
shown by President Cleveland in his numerous vetoes of messages 
for pension relief and the action of the Democratic House of Repre- 
sentatives in refusing even a consideration of general pension legis- 
lation." 

In support of the principles herewith enunciated we invite the 
co-operation of patriotic men of all parties, and especially of all 
workingmen whose prosperity is seriously threatened by the free- 
trade policy of the present administration. 



I.ARCENY OF A STATE. 19' 



LARCENY OF A STATE. 



REPUBLICAN THEFT OF MONTANA. 



The pilfering of precinct 34, and the stealing of Montana, 
hy the "territorial board of scriveners, canvassers, and 
accountants, that triple coil of adders, the chief-justice 
recently appointed from Yerulum, the secretary from 
Sodom, the governor from Gomorrah." 

The contested election case in the Senate between Messrs. 
Clark and Maginnis, Democrats, on the one side, and Messrs. 
Sanders and Power, Kepublicans, on the other, came up from 
Montana. Two bodies assembled at Helena after the election 
held for the selection of State officers and members of the legis- 
lature, both claiming to be the legally elected and constituted 
State Legislature. One was made up in part of what was known 
as the Iron Hall, or Republican, House of Representatives, and 
the other in part of the Court House, or Democratic, House of 
Representatives. The Iron Hall House participated in the elec- 
tion of Messrs. Sanders and Power, while the other participated 
in the election of Messrs. Clark and Maginnis. 

The question was: Which of these two bodies claiming to be 
the House of Representatives was duly elected? And this turned 
upon the vote of precinct 34 in Silver Bow county, which in turn 
depended upon the qualifications of the voters who cast their 
votes there, and upon the legality of the action of the election 
officers in making up, certifying and canvassing the returns for 
that precinct and county. 

The question as to the sufficiency and regularity of the con- 
duct of the officers at precinct 34 was purely frivolous, and it 
was admitted, that there was no one thing named that could 
invalidate the election, but it was insisted that taken together 
they might do so. The law required that there should be five 
judges of election, except in precincts at which fewer than 100 
votes were cast. This was the first election under the law, and 
the county commissioners, supposing that in this mountain pre- 
cinct there would be fewer than 100 votes polled, appointed only 
three judges, two of whom were Republicans. The law also 



20 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

required that the returns be signed by the clerks and attested by 
the judges, whereas they were signed by the judges and attested 
l3y the clerks. It was also objected that the sealed vote was 
handed personally to the clerk instead of being sent by mail; 
that the list of voters was not made out in perfect alphabetical 
order; that some of the names were misspelled, and that in some 
cases the christian and in others the surname came first. 

These things are mentioned only to show the deliberate char- 
acter of the steal and as indicating to what the thieves had to 
resort for pretexts. 

The substantial thing that lay at the bottom of the whole 
matter was the qualifications of the 174 voters who voted at pre- 
cinct 34; for if thuy had the necessary qualifications, then the 
^ve Democrats who voted for Clark and Maginnis were elected 
to the Legislature and these two gentlemen were elected to the 
United States Senate. 

The act of Congress providing for the admission of Mon- 
tana to the Union authorized the constitutional convention to 
provide for the election of members of the Legislature. Accord- 
ingly the convention did provide as authorized, and in its ordi- 
nance adopted this provision of the law of the Territory of Mon- 
tana. 

All male citizens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years, and 
all male persons of the same age who shall have declared their intention of 
becoming citizens, and who, under existing laws of the United States, may 
ultimately become citizens thereof, shall be deemed electors of this Territory 
and be entitled to vote. 

The courts of Montana, after the election, passing upon this 
very question as to this precinct, in several cases followed a 
decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, concurred in by the 
seven Republican judges of that court, upon the objection that 
these voters took the necessary oath in the naturalization pro- 
ceedings outside of the clerk's office, and decided that the oath 
was valid, whether taken in or out of the clerk's office, provided 
the oath was administered by the proper officer, as it was in 
these cases. 

The qualifications of the voters was thus decided by the 
courts of the State to be perfect. The returns of these 174 votes 
were made to the county clerk at Butte, the county-seat, in ac- 
cordance with law, to be canvassed, together with the returns 
from the other precincts in the county, by the county board of 
canvassers. The county board might have refused to tabulate 
these returns; but it did tabulate them. After this, objection 
was made to their action, but they had no right then to undo 
that official work. They tabulated the whole vote of the county. 

The board then had nothing to do but add up the whole vote 
and certify it. This they refused to do, and an alternative writ 
of mandamus was that day served on them to compel them to 
certify. When the case came up for trial the court issued the 



LARCENY OF A STATE. 21 

final, preremptory writ and the board did on the 7th of Novem- 
ber certify the returns as commanded, including the returns 
from precinct 34. 

The statute required the county clerk to foward to the terri- 
torial board of canvassers an abstract of the vote in his county 
within thirty days of the election. This ek ction was held Octo- 
ber 1, and the clerk of Silver Bow county forwarded an abstract, 
including the vote of precinct 34, on October 31. 

That Board, consisting of the governor, the secretary and 
the chief justice of the territory, three Republicans, appointed 
by President Harrison, was authorized to add up all the county 
returns, and to do nothing else. But this board proceeded to 
avoid the results of the election. 

Charles F. Booth, county clerk, had, without authority of 
law, but in his private capacity, as explanatory of his official 
delay in sending the abstract, written the board a letter stating 
that litigation was going on concerning precinct 34, and that on 
October 14, the county board had thrown out this precinct. This 
private letter was sent October 21. 

The certificate of the board, made November 4, shows what 
it did. It first states that the board had no proper copy of the 
abstract of the vote of Silver Bow county, and then proceeds : 

We have before us the official certificate of Charles F. Booth, county clerk of 
Silver Bow county, showing that a certain number of votes were cast for the 
different candidates in that county in the different precincts thereof, naming each 
of them and the number received by each candidate in each precinct, and includ- 
ing the thirty-forth precinct as having voted at said election. 

Apparently just what the law required the clerk to furnish 
to the board. The certificate then says, referring to this private 
letter of the 21st : 

We also have before us an official notice signed by Mr. Booth as county cle^k 
of said county, stating in effect that the board of canvassers in said county met 
as such on the 14th day of October, 1889, and did then and there canvass and 
count the vote of Silver Bow county and declare the result thereof, and that they 
did not count, but did reject as false, fraudulent, and void, all of the votes 
reported as cast and counted in election precinct No. 34, in said county. 

The attempt is here clearly made to convey the idea that the 
private letter and the official abstract came to the board at the 
same time, and that they were really one document, when they 
came fifteen days apart. 

The certificate states further that, having no proper returns 
from Silver Bow county, the board proceeded upon "the best 
sources of information obtainable," to ascertain the vote of the 
county ; and this best sour-ce of information is the abstract sent 
by the county clerk of Silver Bow county, October 31, which 
they accepted thoroughly as to every polling place in the county 
except precinct 34, because the other precincts were necessary to 
the election of a Eepublican, though it included that i^recinct 



22 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

just as it did the others. The board, therefore, canvassed a 
private letter as to precinct 34 for the purpose of setting aside 
the abstract, which abstract they accepted as to every other 
precinct. 

But upon the assumption that this abstract sent by the 
county clerk was not the abstract required by law, the deter- 
mination of the board of three Republicans that the Democratic 
vote should not be counted is still manifest. 

They then had no abstract of the vote of this county, and 
no right under the law to canvass any other sort of *^best sources 
of information" concerning the vote of the county. The pri- 
vate letter warned them that the proceedings in the county 
V70uld prevent the clerks sending what the board considered the 
official abstract before November 7th, and they proceeded, not- 
withstanding this, to render their decision November 4, three 
days before the date stated, though they had before them, at- 
tached to the abstract sent them on October 31, a certified copy 
of the judgment of the court, requiring the county board to sign 
the returns. 

The board had legal authority, plain and indisputable, to sit 
as long as was necessary to **canvass the votes so cast and de- 
clare the result ;" and the fact, therefore, that an appeal was 
taken from the decision of the court, even if the appeal had 
been perfected by the filing of the appeal bond within five days, 
as required by law, which it was not, could in no wise have 
affected their action ; they could have awaited the action on the 
appeal, if necessary, even in case of a supersedeas. 

The board, hoAvever, adjourned November 4, and November 
8, at 10.40 o'clock, several hours before any official papers could 
have reached Washington, the President of the United States be- 
came a party to the proceeding by issuing a proclamation declar- 
ing Montana a member of the Union, in the vain hope that by 
hasty action the jurisdiction of the Territorial Court would be ter- 
minated before the services on the board of the writ of mandamus. 
As a matter of fact, the writ was served the day before the proc- 
lamation was signed. 

The judgment of the court remained in force ; the proper 
certificate, based on that judgment, was sent to the Secretary of 
the Territory, and the returns then in his office showed beyond 
cavil that the five Democrats were elected to the Legislature 
from Silver Bow county. Those returns, in view of the fact that 
the Territorial board had not included them in their canvass, 
were the only proper evidence from which to determine who 
were elected. 

The conclusion may be stated thus : If the abstract sent by 
the clerk to the Republican Territorial board was a proper ab- 
stract, the board was compelled to find that the Democrats had 
the majority of the votes cast. If it was not a proper abstract, 
the board could find nothing concerning tlie vote of Silver iBow 
county until it received a proper abstract, as its whole duty was 



LARCENY OF A STATE. 23 

to add up the votes shown by the abstracts from the various 
counties. If the board failed to perform its duty, either by dis- 
regarding the proper abstract, by resorting to other sources of 
information, or by adjourning before such an abstract was 
received, the title of anyone claiming to have been elected must 
be shown otherwise than by the board's certificate, and the only 
other means is an examination of the legal returns in the office 
of the secretary, which show a majority for the five Democratic 
members of the Court House House of Representatives, who voted 
for Clark and Meginnis, who were therefore duly elected to the 
United States Senate. 

The beginning of the monstrous crime of the theft of a State 
is shown in affidavits attached to the record that was before the 
Senate. 

One voter in precinct 34 makes affidavit that he was offered 
$1,000 and afterwards $2,000, then $3,000, to furnish^ evidence 
to set aside the election; and here is one of the affidavits in full: 

AFFIDAVIT OF W. A. PENNYCOOK. 

In the matter of the election in precinct No. 34, Silver Bow County, State of 

Montana. 

State of Montana, 

County of Lewis and Clarke : 

William A. Pennycook, being first duly sworn, on oath says that he was one 
of the judges who conducted the election held at precinct 34, county of Silver 
Bow, State of Montana, on the 1st day of October, 1889. That he is over the age 
of twenty-one years, and has declared his intention to become a citizen of the 
United States, and is a resident of said Silver Bow County, State of Montana. 
That Mr. Thomas C. Power, of Helena, Mont., the same person claiming to be 
elected United States Senator from Montana, sent word to him, by a friend, to 
come over to Helena, Mont.; that he wanted to see him. That he came over to 
Helena, on the 9th day of January, 1890, and saw Mr. Thomas C. Power at his 
ofiice, in said city of Helena. 

Mr. Power told aflEiant that he (Power) wanted to see him about the election 
at precinct No. 34, Silver Bow County, and that he wanted affiant to throw out 
precinct 34. That affiant could do it easier than what they could. He said he 
would pay all the expense and pay affiant for all the time he lost ; he showed 
affiant a list of names of men who had voted at precinct No. 34, and had not been 
in the Territory for six months. Affiant examined the names and knows that 
a large number of them had been in the Territory more than two years, he, affiant, 
being personally acquainted with them for that period, and affiant so told Mr. 
Power. Power repeatedly told affiant that all he wanted affiant to do was to 
throw out the precinct, using whatever means he liked. 

Said Power talked the matter over for some time, the foregoing being the 
substance of the conversation, affiant listening patiently ; but as affiant was cog- 
nizant of the fact that said election was conducted fairly, and the voters at said 
precinct being duly qualified so to do as affiant confidently believes ; affiant told 
Mr. Power that he would see about it, and shortly after affiant left Mr. Power's 

I 



24 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

office. He also told affiant that he had been corresponding with C. H. Wallow, 
at St. Paul, concerning the men sent out by him from St. Paul and who were not 
in the Territory six months prior to the election, and that this he could prove 
through Wallow, but that Wallow wanted too much money. 

[Signed,] W. A. PENNYCOOK. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of January, A. D. 1890. 

H. R. COMLY, [L. s.] 
Notary Public in and for Lewis and Clarke Co.^ Montana. 

The Republican Senate seated Messrs. Sanders and Power, 
thereby approving the methods by which the result was accom- 
plished. 



THK FORCE BILL. 25 



JOHNNY DAYENPORT'S FOECE BILL. 



BAYONETS AT THE POLLS-FORCE AND FRAUD 
EVERYWHERE. 



Brief History of the Infamous Foree Bill. 

Where did this bill originate, Mr. Speaker ? The gentleman from Massachu- 
setts [Mi^ Lodge] thinks it sprung forth from his busy brain, " like Minerva, 
full-anned, from the brain of Jove." 

This gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rowelljj thinks that he evolved it with 
much mental travail from the bowels of his prolific mind. 

Many others in their vain imaginings no doubt feel that they know its true 
parentage. 

At the risk of creating a family disturbance I propose to give its history. 

It was born of political necessity, and its father is monopoly. Its forerunner 
and accoucheur was the Hon. Thomas B. Reed, Speaker of this House, who 
attended the feast of Belshazzar, at Pittsburgh, Pa., some weeks ago, and to the 
representatives of monopoly there assembled proclaimed the coming of this bill. 
He declared the purpose of the Republican party to do " its own registration, its 
own voting, and its own certification." John the Baptist, when he came preaching 
in the wilderness, was not surer of his mission than was this modern prophet of a 
new system of political government. Mr. Speaker Reed on that occasion, was the 
spokesman and prophet of the allied monopolies, and he had a right to know the 
obligation of the bond between the powers which bought the majority in this 
Congress and the control of this administration at the last election, and the ruling 
and controlling powers here. — Speech of Hon. B. A. Enloe^ of Tennessee, 

House bill 10958, to amend and supplement the election laws 
of the United States, and to provide for the more efficient en- 
forcement of such laws, and for other purposes. 

Introduced by Mr. Lodge and referred to Committee on 
Election of President and Vice-President of the United States, 
Saturday, June 14, 1890. 

House bill 11045, with same title, reported from committee 
as substitute, June 19, 1890. 

Debated, June 26, until passed July 2. 

Placed on the table in Senate, July 7. 
4 



26 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Referred to Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, 
July 25. 

Referred back with amendment and placed on Senate Calen- 
dar, July 7. 

The odium attached to the authorship of this bill has been very 
unjustly cast upon the Hon. H. C. Lodge, of Massachusetts. Mr. 
Lodge is a man with considerable literary talent and is generally 
credited with a knowledge of at least the elementary rules of the 
English language and of English composition, though he has 
never been suspected of any familiarity with law or legal 
phraseology. 

The author of this bill had nothing to qualify him for the 
task he undertook but an acquaintance with the statutory pro- 
visions concerning elections, and a wide experience in Republi- 
can methods of election manipulations. Johnny I. Davenport, 
of unsavory reputation, is generally known to be the father of 
the bill, and it bears all the internal evidences of his character. 

Synopsis of Force bill. 

The original bill revived the test oath, but that provision 
was not in the measure as it passed the House 

The first section continues in office all of the present chief supervisors, but 
section 22 excepts from that rule such chief supervisors as are, on the passage of 
the bill, clerks of either the United States or district courts. The chiefs to be con- 
tiuued and the chief supervisors to be hereafter appointed, one for each judicial 
district throughout the United States, are charged with supervision of Congres- 
sional elections and the prevention of frauds in elections, irregularities in 
naturalization and with enforcement of the election laws. 

Under section 2, in any town or city containing a population of 20,000 or 
upwards, or in any entire Congressional district, on the petition of *' one hundred 
persons claiming to be citizens and qualified voters," or upon the petition of fifty 
such persons claiming to be citizens or qualified voters in one or more counties or 
parishes of any congressional district, the chief supervisor shall take action to 
secure supervision therein as provided by the laws of the United States ; which 
means that when the chief presents these petitions to the circuit court, the judge 
has no discretion but to grant them. And the third section provides that the 
chief may notify the judge and require him to convene the circuit court at the 
chief's dictation for the appointment of such supervisors as he may need, in his 
discretion, for the supervision of the election. 

Section 4 provides that any person who can read and write may apply to the 
chief for appointment as a supervisor of election ; and thereupon the chief will 
furnish him with a blank application printed and paid for by the government, 
which will enable the "rounders," hangers-on, professional jurors and court- 
house loafers to get in their applications. 

Section 5 makes it obligatory upon the judge to appoint as many supervisors 
as the chief may desire, and while the chief may, in his discretion, present addi- 
tional names to those who have formerly applied, the judge has no discretion, but 
is bound to appoint the number desired from the list furnished him by the chief, 
three supervisors at least to each precinct or polliug-place, two from one political 



THE FORCE BILL. 27 

party and one from the other, and gives full authority to the two Republican 
supervisors to act, and their action is made lawful if no Democratic supervisor at 
all should be appointed, and if appointed and he should undertake to expose any 
rascality practiced by the other two, the chief may remove him and suspend his 
pay in his discretion. 

This section arms the chief supervisor with a complete muzzling process. 
He can order any amount of cheating and rascality to be perpetrated at any 
polling-place within his jurisdiction, and if either one of the supervisors or the 
deputy marshal protests or attempts to- expose it, or refuses to bear witness that 
ivhat the majority does is fair and honest, or that what the State inspectors or 
poll clerks do is dishonest and fraudulent — in short, for doing or failing to do 
anything which the chief may desire or order — he may suspend or remove any 
officer within his jurisdiction, stop his pay and cut off his rations. 

Section 6 establishes a kind of carpet-baggery by authorizing the chief to trans- 
fer his subordinate supervisors anywhere throughout a Congressional district. 
He may send them from any county to any other. 

The latter part of this section, in connection with the preceding, invests the 
chief supervisor with the autocratic powers described. 

The seventh section declares the chief and all the inferior supervisors and 
-deputy marshals to be officers of the United States the moment they are assigned 
to duty; which puts them within the protection of the Nagle case recently 
decided by the Supreme Court, the effect of which is to exempt them from prose- 
cution in the State courts for any crime they may commit under color of their 
office, or while assuming to discharge the duties thereof. If one of them should 
kill or maltreat a citizen of the State he would not be amenable to the State law, 
but could only be tried in a United States court, and before a partisan judge, 
whose creature he is. 

Section 8 invests the chief with the power, through his subordinates, to revise 
and supervise the registration of voters; to examine State ballot-boxes before 
elections begin ; to keep a poll-list and to number the voters; to receive and 
count ballots rejected by the State inspectors ; to make statements and returns 
to the chief supervisor in whatever form, manner and to the extent the chief 
requires, and such returns to be sent up to him by the deputy marshal ; and in a 
city of 20,000 inhabitants and upwards, the chief may require any of the super- 
visors and a deputy marshal to make a house-to-house canvass, which may begin 
five weeks before and be continued on the day of election, inquiring into the 
^legibility of voters and whether they have ever been legally naturalized, which 
is simply a provision for domiciliary visits to do the work of ticket peddlers, intimi- 
dators and bribers in the interest of the Republican party. Neither of the men 
assigned to this work is required to belong to the opposing political party. 

These officers are also authorized to call for and examine naturalization 
papers of our adopted American citizens, and to go into the courts and examine 
records to see whether naturalization papers have been regularly obtained, though 
they are required to have no knowledge of law. They are authorized to enter 
any court of any State or of the United States where naturalization proceedings 
are going on and to take a hand in the business, and aid the courts in the discharge 
of their duties and to prevent fraudulent naturalization. 

They are also authorized to inform all voters in which box to deposit their 
ballots. And if they see any Democrat go with a voter into any booth or room 
it is made the duty of one of them to enter and superintend the voting. 



28 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The sixth subdivision of section 8 authorizes the supervisors in towns of 
5,000 inhabitants or upward, " by proper inquiry and examination at the respec- 
tive places assigned by or to those registered as their residences, all such names 
placed or found upon the registration books, rolls or lists, as the chief 
supervisor of elections shall require to be so verified, and to make full report 
thereof to such chief supervisor." And the fourteenth subdivision authorizes 
the chief supervisor, when he shall have reason to believe " that fraud or perjury 
has been, or is being committed about the matter of naturalization in any place," 
to send his supervisors to prevent it, and when thus sent they are to be clothed 
with " all the power and authority conferred upon supervisors in cities of 20,000 
inhabitants and upward." That is to say, whatever in the chief's own opinion 
gives him " reason to believe" is a matter for his own conscience, if he has any. 

Whenever the chief supervisor's conscience makes a case where he could send 
his subordinates they would be clothed with all the powers which they have in 
cities of 20,000 inhabitants ; and then they would proceed to make a house-to- 
house canvass as ticket peddlers for the Republican party, imposing upon the igno- 
rant, that if they fail to attend the election and vote the tickets distributed it may 
go hard with them. 

The twelfth subdivision of section 8 beats know-nothingism in its palmiest 
days. It requires the supervisors, when instructed by their chief, to make a com- 
plete list of all foreign-born persons who have been naturalized, with the date 
thereof, their place of nativity and present residence, and the name and residence 
of the witnesses used to obtain naturalization papers ; and they are to examine 
and note the original affidavits and application presented to the court, all which 
shall be filed in the office of the chief supervisor and there preserved. It estab- 
lishes political espionage over all our naturalized American citizens with a view to 
controlling their votes for the Republican party. 

Section 9 annuls the State laws and prescribes a new method of counting, 
canvassing, and certifying the votes cast at a Congressional election ; it provides 
for counting by tens instead of fives, alternating between State inspectors and 
United States supervisors, and is so complicated as to create confusion, and will 
not be understood by one-third of the State inspectors, nor by the supervisors un- 
til drilled, taught, and instructed by their chief, and with section 8 completely destroys 
the secrecy of the ballot. 

Section 10 relates to the same subject. 

Section 11 requires the inspectors to make their returns under the State law 
and requires the supervisors to make a copj'- of such return and to send it with 
any outside statement to the chief supervisor. 

Section 12 and 13 relate to the same subject. 

Section 14 provides that if the State inspectors at any polling place fail to 
open the polls for one hour from the time they may be first opened, it shall then 
be the duty of the supervisors present to open the polls and conduct the election 
for Representative in Congress. 

Section 15 authorizes the chief supervisor to notify the judge of the United 
States circuit court in September that he has business for the court to transact ; 
and thereupon the judge shall open his court the 1st of October, and shall appoint 
a board of three canvassers, not more than two of whom shall belong to the same 
political party, who shall hold their offices for " so long as faithful and capable." 

They shall have a seal and the power of appointing a clerk who shall receive 
$12 per day, and each of them shall receive a salary of $15 a day for each day ac- 



THE FORCE BILL. 29 

tually employed in the work of " canvassing the statements and certificates of 
ballots cast at any election, general or special, for a Representative or Delegate in 
Congress, and a further sum of $5 per day for their personal expenses." The 
board is required to convene on the 15th day of November of each even year, and 
shall convene at such place in the State as is most convenient to them where a 
circuit court of the United States is held, and are to have power finally to canvass^ 
and tabulate the statements of the votes in each Congressional district of the 
State according to the returns made to the chief supervisors ; they may call before 
them and examine any of the supervisors who acted at the election anywhere in 
the district as to the correctness of the returns made by them. 

The majority of the board are authorized to act, which is equivalent to saying^ 
that the Republican members of the board may decide any matter to suit them- 
selves, and the Democratic member can do nothing more than protest. When 
they arrive at a decision their finding is to be made public in triplicate certificates, 
one to be filed with the chief supervisor, one to be sent to the person elected, and 
one to be sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, unless they find 
that no one was elected ; and then the certificate is sent to the governor of the 
State. 

Section 16 makes it the duty of the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 
put on the roll of members-elect the name of the person certified by the board of 
canvassers to have been elected. And for failure to comply with this requirement 
they make the clerk punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000, nor more $5,000,^ 
and imprisonment for not more than five years, one or both, and to be forever 
disqualified from holding office lyider the "United States. 

A certificate of election from the governor of a State is set at naught and 
made worthless. The certification of two partisan members of a canvassing- 
board appointed by a Federal judge is to be received as gospel truth, while the 
certification of a governor who speaks for a State is to be treated as waste paper 
and utterly disregarded. 

Section 17 requires the Attorney-General of the United States to formulate 
and have printed and furnished to the board of canvassers in each State all such 
blanks as they and their clerks may need in the discharge of their official duties,, 
to be paid for out of the Treasury. 

Section 18 authorizes the State board of canvassers in all matters coming- 
before them " to act by a majority of its members ;" and if the third member 
dissents from the decision he may state his reasons therefor and attach a copy to 
each of the triplicate certificates. 

Section 19 provides for the compensation of supervisors and deputy marshals. 
It authorizes the chief to refuse to pay any of the subordinates who may fail to 
carry out his orders. 

Section 20 provides for the appointment of such number of special deputy 
marshals as the chief supervisor may *' certify to be, in his opinion, necessary, to 
observe the manner in which the election officers are discharging their duties, to 
enforce the election laws of the United States, and to prevent frauds and irregu- 
larities in naturalization." One-third of the special deputies shall be appointed 
from a list of names furnished the marshal by the chief supervisor, and the mar- 
shal shall assign these special deputies according to the request of the chief super- 
visor ; and the special deputies shall take charge of returns made by the supervi- 
sors *' as rapidly as the canvass of each box is completed," and deliver them to 
the chief. 



:30 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The remainder of this section provides for the location of the office of the 
■chief supervisor, who is made an officer for life, and for the payment of the ex- 
penses thereof from a permanent appropriation. 

Section 21 requires the chief supervisor to furnish to his subordinates all forms, 
blanks, maps, and instructions which he deems necessary, and requires him to file 
and preserve in his office returns, certificates, tally sheets, poll-lists, and tele- 
grams. 

Section 22 disqualifies clerks of the circuit and district courts of the United 
States from being chief supervisors. And in any judicial district where no chief 
other than a clerk of the court has been appointed " it shall be the duty of the 
circuit court * * * to appoint from among the circuit court commissioners 
one of them the chief supervisor of elections * * * for the judicial district 
for which he is a commissioner." 

The remainder of the section fixes the term of office of all chief supervisors 
to be for life or " so long as faithful and capable ;" which means for life or so 
long as their administration is deemed by the appointing power to be " faithful 
and capable." But nowhere in the bill is the power or right of removal vested 
or declared to be in any person, court, or officer, unless it be as a penalty result- 
ing from conviction for malfeasance in office. 

It will be observed that no discretion whatever is given to the circuit court 
to appoint a chief supervisor except within the charmed circle of United States 
commissioners for the district; and what a sweet bevy, what a glorious lot 
of officials many of them are ! 

Sections 23 and 24 provide for the manner of drawing from the Treasury and 
the manner of paying supervisors for their services, including the chief ; pay- 
ments, fees, and allowances, all being extremely liberal. 

Section 25 authorizes the chief as a circuit court commissioner to administer 
oaths to supervisors and deputy marshals, and empowers him to designate such 
■other circuit court commissioners in his judicial district as he sees fit to adminis- 
ter such oaths, and allow 25 cents for administering and certifying the same. A 
judicial district usually embraces two, and sometimes a dozen. Congressional 
districts. 

Another striking feature, striking because of its utter absence, is that the bill 
nowhere prescribes either the form or the substance of the oath to be admisistered 
to any supervisor or deputy marshal. The fees seem to have been a far more im- 
portant consideration to the framers of the bill. And an oath to conduct the 
election fairly and to make honest returns would, upon the hypothesis that some 
of the appointees might have consciences, have been a provision inconsistent with 
the general purpose of the bill, which is, by any means and at all hazards, to 
perpetuate the Republican party in power and to pay for it out of the Treasury. 

Section 26 authorizes the chief to have appointed a deputy chief supervisor 
and a clerk, who shall each be selected from that charmed circle of favorites. 
United States circuit-court commissioners, and that they shall each receive such 
compensation as the chief in his discretion sees proper to give or allow them. 

Secton 27 provides that the chief supervisor shall present his account for ex- 
penses to a circuit or district judge for approval, and when approved shall be for- 
warded to the Treasury of the United States and there made " special," which 
means that they shall be audited in preference to any other accounts or claims, 
and shall be paid without delay. It also provides that for any items disallowed 
.by the accounting officers, or for the entire claim, without presenting it to the 



THE FORCE BII.I.. 31 

Treasury at all, the chief supervisor may sue the United States either in the Court 
of Claims or in the circuit court of his judicial district, and recover judgment 
therefor; that all such suits shall be preferred causes and shall be tried without 
delay in preference to all other cases pending in such courts, and when judgment 
}a recovered, which will usually be before the same judge who approves the ac- 
count in the first instance, the same shall be promptly paid by the Treasurer of 
the United States. And the fees of commissioners for all services rendered in 
connection with the election laws are placed on the same basis as to allowance 
and payment. 

Section 28 provides a permanent appropriation — a kind of appropriation 
which is vicious in the extreme — for the payment of all the fees and expenses of 
the new system provided by the bill. 

Section 29, as amended by the House, provides for a review on appeal to the 
circuit court of any alleged erroneous action upon the part of the board of can- 
vassers. It also empowers the circuit court, upon affidavit filed alleging error in 
the determination of any board of canvassers, " either national. State, Territorial,, 
county or any local board," to require such board to correct such error or to show 
cause why such correction should not be made, and to compel such correction by 
mandamus if necessary ; and section 30 continues any such board of canvassers 
for the purpose of being required to make any such correction. 

Section 31 prescribes a penalty for any marshal, warden, or keeper of any 
jail, prison, or penitentiary to which United States prisoners are ever committed 
or confined pending trial, " who shall refuse or decline to receive and safely keep 
any prisoner committed to his custody under any warrant or other process of any 
judge of any court of the United States or any circuit court commissioner," by 
fine not to exceed $1,000 and imprisonment of not more than one year. 

This section is not applicable alone to violations of this particular law, but is 
general in its provisions. Any State prison to which a United States prisoner has 
ever been committed or confined, although it be but pending trial, is so far confis- 
cated, or, to speak more accurately, appropriated, to the use of the United States 
that this high' penalty is prescribed against any jailor or keeper of such State in- 
stitution who shall refuse or decline for any cause " to receive and safely keep 
any prisoner committed" by any United States judge or commissioner. The in- 
stitution may be full of State prisoners and there be no room in which to receive 
and safely keep United States prisoners, no matter, the law is violated, the pen- 
alty incurred all the same. 

Presumedly the authors of this bill framed this section with a view to having 
ample prison facilities for the incarceration and subjugation of Democratic 
voters. 

Section 32 adopts a large number of sections of United States statutes so as 
to make them apply and conform to other parts of this bill. It re-enacts those 
sections of the Revised Statutes referred to as touching " the elective franchise," 
and providing troops at the polls, and also re-enacts " civil rights," several sec- 
tions of which were declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case of Reese, 92 United States Reports, to be unconstitutional and void. 

The attempt to re-enact those sections is a covert one and done by vague ref- 
erence instead of a manly and open one. 

Section 33 repeals many sections of the Revised Statutes in conflict with the 
bill saving prosecutions and actions already accrued thereunder. 

Section 34 requires State inspectors or local election officers to paste a label 



32 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

on the front of the ballot-box for the reception of Congressional ballots and to 
point it out to all voters who may not be able to read the label. It requires such 
box to be kept upon a shelf, table, or counter in plain sight of the electors and 
•easy of access to them and so that the voters themselves may deposit their ballots 
therein in plain view of all the election officers, national and State, and that the 
Tdox, all during the day of election, shall not be shifted, changed, or otherwise 
moved from the place at which it is put on the opening of the polls, and that it 
shall not be removed from the room during the day or night following the elec- 
tion until all the ballots are " fully ascertained, tallied, counted, and canvassed, 
.and the statements and certificates therefor have been made out, signed, and 
sealed." 

This precludes the idea of numbering the ballots as required in some States, 
:and enables the voter to deposit several ballots inclosed within each other which 
may have the appearance of but one. It will facilitate the perpetration of fraud 
"by allowing one dishonest man to cast as many ballots as six honest ones. This 
provision, howerer, is in harmony in this respect with other parts of the bill. 

Sections 35 and 36 provide penalties and punishment for stufllng boUot-boxes, 
frauds, bribery of voters or officers. 

Section 37 prescribes regulations comparatively free from objection, except 
in a matter already referred to. 

Section 38, as it came from the committee, was a proposition to amend the 
law in respect to the drawing of jurors in the United States court. The law'now 
provides that they shall be drawn by the clerk of the court and a jury commis- 
sioner of opposite politics, and the proposition was to repeal it as to the jury 
commissioner and to allow the clerks, nearly all being Republicans, to select and 
pack juries, to convict Democrats and acquit Republicans charged with the viola- 
tion of election laws. This odious feature was stricken out, but they afterwards 
adopted a provision for a jury commission, which is equally odious. 

The remaining sections of the bill, from section 39 to section 57, inclusive, 
are definitions of offences and prescribing penalties for violations of the election 
law. Section 53 makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, 
■*' willfully to disobey any lawful command of a supervisor of election given in 
the execution of his duty at any election at which a Representative is voted for," 
etc. It is so vague and uncertain as to leave the person in ignorance of what 
commands of the supervisors are lawful. It is a " blind tiger," which answers 
the purpose of the advocates of the bill much better than a plain provision defining 
what commands the supervisor may lawfully give. 

Consideration of Force Bill. 

June 25, the Committee on Rules reported this special order 
to the House, instead of proceeding according to the rules to the 
consideration of the Force bill : 

Besohed, That immediately after the passage of this resolution the House 
proceed to consider House bill No. 11045 until July 2 at 2 o'clock, when the pre- 
vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any pending 
amendments and upon a substitute for the whole bill, which the member in charge 
of the bill shall have a right to offer ; that during the last two days amendments 
may be offered to any part of the bill in the House, with debate under the five- 
minute rule; that this shall not interfere with general appropriation bills. 



THE FORCE BILL. 33 

The opponents of the measure protested against this sum- 
mary proceeding and demanded a reasonable time for discussion, 
but the resolution was adopted, and it was agreed that the House 
should meet at 11 o'clock during the consideration of the bill. 
Here are the opening sentences of the putative father of the 
bill that was to be railroaded through the House : 

Mr. Lodge. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any grayer or more important 
subject could come before this House than the one presented by the pending bill. 
The subject is one which demands the most serious and deliberate treatment on 
the part of the House. 

But the House not being a '^ deliberative body," proceeded 
with the bill. 

Opposed by Repiibliea.ii Members. 

The opposition to the bill was not confined to Democratic 
members. Some of the strongest speeches made against it came 
from Kepublican members, especially those from the South, who 
were best acquainted with political conditions in the quarter at 
which the bill was particularly aimed. The speeches of its 
friends, however, demonstrated the fact that it was intended to 
apply to every district that returns a Democratic majority, 
whether in the North or South. 

Mr. Lehlbach, a Republican member from New Jersey, 
miade a very strong speech in opposition. Among other things 
he said: 

I have no doubt that frauds are perpetrated to a certain extent, both in the 
North and in the South. It would, however, be wiser in my opinion to let the 
people of the different States regulate their own elections. [Applause on the 
Democratic side.] Time, education of the masses and advancement of the moral 
sentiments of the communities will bring about the same result, and when 
obtained the relief will be permanent. 

The law is not general, and it does not provide the same system for conduct- 
ing Congressional elections in every Congressional district of the United States. 
The application of fifty to one hundred persons claiming to be citizens of the 
United States and residents and qualified voters of the district for which they 
make application may force upon the people of that district this supervision of 
election which may be obnoxious to them. 
****** *jf-*** 

If a law is enacted at all for the purpose of regulating elections, let it be so 
framed that it will apply uniformly throughout all parts of the country and not 
depend upon the petition of any number of citizens. 

I believe that many would seriously object to the provision of the bill which 
would give one man, the chief supervisor, the poAver to direct a house-to-house 
canvass, and to subject them to the annoyance of what they would consider a 
political inquisition. We must remember that while the people who are strong 
party adherents might not object to it, the large class of independent voters 
might consider that it was merely a canvass made oflScially by the party in power 
to further the interests of that party. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

5 



34 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

United States marshals and supervisors have often caused trouble at election 
places. They have assumed authority and frequently have prevented or sought 
to prevent legalized voters vs^ho belonged to the opposite political party of which 
they themselves were members from casting their ballots. I have great faith in 
the people of the United States. I believe that self-government is not a failure. 
I believe that where frauds have been committed in election matters public opinion 
will finally compel the conviction and punishment of the law-breakers. 
*********** 

I think the law as proposed will tend to bring about a conflict of authority 
between election officers elected directly by the people and the supervisors 
appointed. This, I think, would develop a deplorable state of affairs in some sec- 
tions of the country. 
«*****«»**» 

The people will take care of the matter. 

In these times many are apt to come to Congress and to the legislative bodies 
of the States to ask for the passage of laws to correct evils, or supposed evils. In 
many of these cases, and I believe in all, legislation is unnecessary, and not only 
wouid not bring about the results desired, but would retard any advance in re- 
form — matters that can be regulated only when the people become better enlight- 
ened by education and when a public sentiment has been created in favor of the 
good. 

I consider it unwise to enact this law. 

I believe its results will not be beneficial to the people of the country, and, 
speaking as a Republican, not beneficial to the Republican party. 

I shall, therefore, vote against it. 

Hon. Nathan Frank, Rep., of Missouri, said: 

'My. Speaker : Owing to the views I entertain on the pending measure, I enter 
into the discussion of this question with great reluctance, and have concluded to 
do so after mature reflection and from an impressive sense of duty to myself, my 
4)arty and my country. 

******** * * * 

But the questions of a fair ballot and an honest count, unimpeded vote and 
a correct return, an unbribed voter and an incorrupt canvasser, all these recog- 
nized and appreciated as the very foundation of a representative Government and 
the perpetuity |of republican institutions, are not patent rights of the Republican 
party ; all the wisdom is not ours, all the blunders are not yours. The thoughts 
of the people of most of the States have been concentrated on this question for 
years. Each State has endeavored by its election laws, amended, altered and 
improved, to secure the same result ; and hence you have heard so much said of 
the latest fad, the Australian system, adopted in Massachusetts and my State, and 
this American system just adopted in New York, these systems which, in the zeal 
for an honest election, seems to have entered into a competition for the champion- 
ship which can disfranchise the most voters. 
*********** 

With those provisions [Sections 10, 15, 16 and 38] it is a hybrid-mongrel affair, 
subversive of recognized State rights, odious in its authorization of the determin- 
ation of results by setting up comparatively irresponsible persons, selected by 



THK FORCE BILL. 35 

one man, as paramount in authority and position to the chief exectitive oflEicers 
of the State chosen by the people of the State. 
****** * * ** * 

By the j)rovisions of sections 15 and 16, the circuit judge appoints for 
each State three citizens to compose a national board of canvassers, two of whom 
will belong to the same political party in most cases, who, at $15 a day, shall do 
what ? — declare and certify the results of the election on figures, tabulated return 
and statements furnished to them by the chief supervisor and the clerk of the 
court, which declaration and certification shall entitle the person designated to a 
Seat on this floor. 

Hon. H. D. Coleman, Rep., of Louisiana: 

Mr. Speaker : I am a Republican from conviction and from principle ; a 
Southern man by birth, education, and association ; elected as a Republican to 
represent in this nation's House of Representatives the Congressional district 
where I was born and raised. A realization of my oath of office and my responsi- 
bilities as a member of this Fifty-first Congress impress me now with much con- 
cern for those whom I am here to represent. 
****** * * * ** 

If you are detennined to pass a Federal election law, then you must prepare 
to enforce it with Federal bayonets and possibly Federal bullets, as suggested by 
the eloquent and distinguished gentleman from Iowa, my big-hearted, generous, 
but impulsive friend Mr. Henderson, whose enthusiasm, when discussing this bill 
last Saturday, can be equaled only by his musical voice, his talent for song, and 
his wonderful good humor when participating in the rousing chorusses of rebel 
war songs during that delightful Congressional vacation some weeks ago in the 
grandly picturesque and exhilarating surroundings of the Blue Mountain House. 

With a condition of affairs suggestive of Republican Federal bullets fired 
from ranks of colored men and Federal soldiers, how many will the Republican 
party secure from the ranks of their present political opponents ? 
*********** 

The enactment of a Federal election law is sectional legislation, and the 
political party responsible for such can not expect to prosper thereby. While it 
may be difficult to prove, I am of the opinion that votes are purchased and 
voters are influenced by employers in some other States than those in Dixie. Are 
you sure it makes no difference whose ox is gored ? 

Mr. Speaker, in reading General Washington's farewell address, delivered 
nearly one hundred years ago, I find the following passage, which seems to be 
very appropriate now : 

One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular dis- 
tricts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not 
shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring 
from these misrepresentations, and they tend to render alien to each other those 
who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. 

Mr. Speaker, can it be possible that some districts that now send Republicans 
to Congress need to be stimulated by some political slogan which affects other 
sections, slogans which are plausible in theory but hollow in realization. 
******* * * * * 

Will you not hearken to the words of Grant, the soldier and the patriot ? 
" Let us have peace." [Applause.] 



36 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Hon. J. B. Cheadle, Rep., of Indiana, speaking of 
Section 10 : 

Standing here in my place as a Representative of the Ninth district of 
Indiana, I do deny the authority of this Congress to enact a law that will author- 
ize the supervisors or any other officers of this Government to go into our district 
and take possession of the tickets that are cast by the electors of that district for 
the various judicial county and legislative officers of the district at an election 
held in conforniity to the laws of the State of Indiana. 

I deny the right of this body to authorize these Federal officers to take those 
tickets, which are the highest and the only evidence by which we can have a 
recount under our State law, or conduct contests. I deny, I say, the authority 
of this Congress to come in by its agents and take possession of those tickets 
which are the only evidence of the fact that the electors in the various counties 
composing the district have selected certain persons to represent them or to serve 
them in the various local offices of that State. 
*** * * ** **** 

But, standing as I do in the presence of so many able and distinguished law- 
yers upon both sides of this chamber, I venture to say there is not a man upon 
this floor who will contend for a moment that we have a right to go into the State 
of Indiana, or the State of Kentucky, or the State of N"ew York, or the State of 
Tennessee, and take possession of the tickets cast by the voters of those States 
for the various county, judicial, and State officers. It can not be done without 
trampling under foot the fundamental principles of our system of local govern- 
ment. It can not be done without an unwarranted interference by the National 
Government with those rights which belong under the Constitution to the States. 

Again he said : 

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that any law which may be enacted with reference 
to the election of members of Congress ought, if possible, to be made a national 
law — not sectional. 

•J^ * -X- * * * -Sf * * * * 

I am in favor of the amendment offered by my friend from New Jersey [Mr. 
Lehlbach], and hope it will prevail. I want to say here and now for the com- 
mon people of the North that we want all these sectional prejudices and passions 
buried out of sight forever. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

Hon. H. G. EwART, Rep., of JSTorth Carolina : 
Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of deep regret that a stern sense of duty com- 
pels me to antagonize a proposition which a large majority of the political 
party to which I belong are committed and have formally indorsed as a 
party measure. I am well aware of the penalty I shall have to pay in opposing 
this measure. Unfortunately, it has readied that point in American politics 
where, under the iron and despotic ruling of King Caucus, a Representative of 
the people is often forced to forget that he has a conscience, and blindly ignoring 
all sense of self-respect and manly pride, commit himself to the support of meas- 
ures which, deep down in his heart, he knows to be utterly Avrong. 

We often hear of the nerve and boldness of politicians. That is a mere fig, 
ure of speech; a flight of the imagination. As a rule, the politician is an arrant 
coward, and rarely ever possesses the courage of his convictions. His good sense, 
his cool judgment, his conscience, if he has any, may all condemn the measure 



THE FORCK BILL. 37 

"under consideration, but the crack of the party lash generally brings him cower- 
ing and whimpering to the feet of the master to do his bidding. We need not go 
far to illustrate what I mean. To-day, to our shame and discredit be it said, 
there are Representatives from sovereign States upon this floor who, deep down 
in their hearts, know that this election bill is as damnable, illogical, inequitable, 
and vicious a piece of legislation as was ever attempted to be placed upon the 
statute-books of this Republic. [Applause.] And yet at a sacrifice of their man- 
hood, sober judgment, their sense of fairness and justness, feeling the keen sting 
of the caucus lash, they will support a measure which will add untold miseries to 
the woes of the unfortunate people it is designed to help, stir up race troubles 
and factional strife in our fair South land, and breed political confusion worse 

confounded. 

*** # * ** * *** 

As to his political rights, speaking for my own State, I unhesitatingly 
assert that no Republican in the State, black or white, is prevented from casting his 
vote. The elections are absolutely fair. [Applause.] Here and there, as is the 
case in perhaps any State in the Union, local returning boards assume to throw 
out certain precincts for alleged irregularities, and in that way often wrongs are 
done. Representatives from other States can speak for their own sections ; I only 
speak positively for my own. It has been alleged that grave frauds were perpe- 
trated in the Second district, and yet it is a fact that the United States courts in 
tliat district have just adjourned without finding a single bill af indictment. It is 
proper that I should state that both the judge and district attorney are Repub- 
licans. 
***** * # * * ** 

I say that the negro is to-day thinking for himself. It is a delusion to suppose 
that he is voting the Republican ticket solidly. He is doing nothing of the kind. 
Thousands of them to-day are voting the Democratic ticket as willingly and as 
openly as the Republican ticket is voted by myself or any of my colleagues on 
this floor. 

It is getting more and more difficult every year for the Republican party to 
control him. Thousands, as I have stated, openly vote the Democratic ticket. 
Thousands do not manifest interest enough in an election to go to the polls. He 
is growing skeptical about certain pledges and promises which have been made 
and broken by the political organization to which for so many years he has shown 
his loj^alty. Widespread dissatisfaction exists among the colored voters of the 
South to-day. There never was a proposition as dear to the negro heart as the 
Blair educational bill. The negro knows the power of education. He looked 
eagerly to the great Republican party to redeem in honor and good faith the 
pledge it had made in its platform at Chicago to extend national aid to the 
common-school system of the country. 

*********** 

Speaking for my own State, I can safely say that if the election was to take 
place to-morrow, not three-tenths of the colored votes in the State would be cast 
for the nominees of the Republican party. 

*********** 

It is a sectional measure, designed almost entirely for the South. It is a sort, 
of legislation which can only be characterized as that of the spotted hit or miss, 
fly-trap order. 



38 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Witli the exception of that variety of Southern Republicans who desire to see 
only a skeleton Republican party in the South, in order that the area of official 
availability may be as limited as possible, I have the hearty indorsement of my 
party in opposing this measure. [Applause.] But if I did not, Mr. Speaker, it 
would not have affected my action in this matter. "Whilst I may have politically 
sacrificed myself here, I have the proud satisfaction of knowing that I have done 
my duty, and having done that, in possession of a " peace within me that exceeds- 
all earthly dignities, a still and quiet conscience." 
■*** * * #*#*#* 

I do not desire to check this prosperity by voting for legislation that will prove' 
inimical to their best interests. I do not know what course other Southern Repub- 
lican Representatives may take in this matter; but, speaking for myself, I will 
never by my vote or voice support a proposition that tends to humiliate or degrade- 
my people. I shall, if I am the only Republican on this floor, protest against the 
passage of a law that will sow the foul seeds of factional discord among the people, 
be a fruitful cause of unutterable woe to the unfortunate class it is designed to 
benefit. If that be treason to the party to which I have ever been loyal, make the 
most of it. [Prolonged applause.] 

Federal Courts as Instruments of Oreed and Oppression^ 

The bill provides for subjecting the United States courts and 
judges to the authority of the chief supervisor. Upon this sub- 
ject Hon. R. P. Flower, of New York, said: 

The purpose of the measure is to get into the hands of the Republican party 
the whole election machinery of the States, and, in order to accomplish this design, 
there is manifested a willingness to degrade the Federal judiciary by dragging it 
into the filth of partisan politics, and to make it the instrument of oppression to 
the people. Almost every circuit and district judge on the Federal bench belongs 
to the party that is attempting to drive this bill through Congress, and a more 
blindly partisan use of the judiciary of a country than will follow the enactment 
of this measure has never disgraced any people since the time of Jeffreys and the 
Star Chamber. 

PROSTITUTING THE JUDICIARY. 

No judicial system can be subjected to this abuse and retain the confidence 
and respect of the people ; and any court that will lend itself to the execution of 
the corrupt purpose of a partisan clique and become the willing servant of an 
unscrupulous political oligarchy richly deserves the popular execration it is sure 
to receive. 

The subjection of the circuit judge and the courts to the beck and call of the 
supervisor of elections to convene the courts at his pleasure, to execute his will, 
and to have its proceedings determined by the influence of a set of petty political 
corruptionists, bent upon installing in office the men who shall have been already 
elected by Republican conventions, can result only in unsettling the judicial sys- 
tem of the country and shaking that only sure foundation of our Government — 
the confidence of the people in republican institutions. 

It is provided that the circuit judge may assign any district judge within a 
State to the discharge of the duties devolved upon him whenever he is unable to 
discharge them himself, and that the circuit judge may at any time revoke such 



THK FORCE BILL. 39 

assignment and make a new one, or reassign the first district judge assigned. 
TMs is a wise provision in furtherance of the object of keeping tlie Republican 
forces well in hand, and it may be assumed that no district judge, once assigned 
to do the bidding of the supervisor, will prove recalcitrant. If he should become 
disagreeably free from the power of the supervisor, that august functionar}'- need 
Taut to report him to his confederate, the circuit judge, and then have a more docile 
servant placed on the bench. 

Sir, the history of political prosecutions in some of our Federal courts is 
already rank with unscrupulous abuse of the law, and this measure, if passed, will 
add many a chapter to the story of judicial oppression. It makes crimes against 
the General Government many acts that are now punishable only by local law, and 
it reaches out to the private citizen and the public official alike, placing it within 
the power of a supervisor or deputy marshal to render impossible the discharge of 
public duties by those upon whom the States and local communities have imposed 
the obligation of their discharge. 

This feature of the bill was dwelt upon by every opponent of 
the bill, and the only answer ever made was that the Federal 
judges are upright men, though Republicans in politics. But, 
as was pointed out by many of the speakers, the character of the 
judges can have no weight against the supervisors, whose tools 
they are made by the bill. The judges have no discretion as to 
many of the things they are to perform, but must do the bid- 
ding of the *^ chief autocrat of elections." The judges can not 
even appoint a supervisor that is not recommended by the '^ chief 
autocrat." 

Partisan and "Fixed" Juries. 

Hon. D. B. Culberson, one of the ablest lawyers in the 
House, and formerly chairman of the Judiciary Committee, gave 
a brief history of the laws relating to juries in the Federal 
courts. He said : 

From 1789 to 1863 the law prescribing the qualifications of jurors tor service 
in the courts of the United States and regulating the manner of their selection 
^ere not materially changed. Jurors to serve in the courts of the United States 
in each State respectively were required, under those laws, to have the same qual- 
ifications, and to be entitled to the same exemptions as jurors in the highest court 
of law in such State. 

In June, 1862, an act was passed by Congress which made a radical change in 
respect to the qualifications of jurors. By the provisions of that act every per- 
son was disqualified for jury service in the courts of the United States who had 
Toluntarily taken up arms against the United States, or had joined any insurrec- 
tion or rebellion against the United States, or had adhered to any insurrection 
or rebellion, giving it aid and comfort, or who had given, directly or indirectly, 
any assistance in money, arms, horses, clothes, or anything whatever to or for 
the use or benefit of any person whom the giver of such assistance knew to have 
joined or to be about to join any insurrection or rebellion, or to have resisted or 
to be about to resist, with force and arms, the execution of the laws of the United 
States, etc. 

The act of 1863 further provided that, at any tenn of any court of the United 



40 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK, 

States, the judge might, in his discretion, require the clerk to tender to any per- 
son summoned to serve as a grand or petit juror, or venireman, or talesman, in 
said court, the test oath substantially, commonly called the " ironclad oath," and 
any person who declined to take the oath was summarily discharged by an order 
of the court from serving on the grand or petit jury. 

This statute remained in force until 1879. And during all that long period, 
made memorable by war and embalmed in our memories by the oppression and 
wrongs of reconstruction, no Democrat accused of crime under the provisions of 
the elective franchise or crimes articles ever entered the portals of a United 
States court-house in the South believing that he would be granted a fair and 
impartial trial. And, Mr. Speaker, no Republican charged with the violation of a. 
penal statute of the United States during that period entertained the slightest 
doubt of a triumphant acquittal and a free deliverance at the hands of a Repub- 
lican jury and a partisan Republican court. 

In 1879 Congress passed an act which repealed sections 820 and 821 of the 
Revised Statutes, which contained in substance the partisan provisions of the act. 
of 1862, and that act further provides that — 

All jurors, grand and petit, including those summoned during court, should; 
be publicly drawn from a box containing at the time of each drawing the names- 
of not less than three hundred persons possessing the qualifications prescribed in 
section 800 of the Revised Statutes, which names shall have been placed therein 
by the clerk of such court and a commissioner, to be appointed by the judge- 
thereof, which commissioner shall be a citizen of good standing, residing in the 
district in which such court is held, and a well-known member of the principal 
political party in the district in which the court is held opposing that to which 
the clerk may belong, the clerk and said commissioner each to place one name in. 
the box alternately, without reference to party affiliations, until the whole num- 
ber required shall be placed therein. 

This beneficent statute not only repealed the partisan provisions of the act^of 
1862, but guaranteed to the citizens. North and South, Democrat or Republican, a. 
fair and impartial trial. I have observed to some extent the operation of this law,, 
and I can confidently assert that it has in the main destroyed partisanship in the 
trial of civil and criminal causes in my section of the country, and has done more 
than any other thing to sweep the bitter memories of the war and the persecu- 
tions in the courts which followed it behind us. 

The awe and terror with which a court of the United States was regarded 
during the reign of unfettered and unbridled partisanship in the conduct of judi- 
cial proceedings have ceased to exist, and in their stead has come the universal 
belief that party spirit or partisan hate no longer employs the machinery of the- 
courts to crush opponents or reward friends. 

Section 38 of the Force bill proposed to amend the present 
law by striking out the provision for the participation of a Com- 
missioner in the drawing of juries, and on behalf of the minority 
of the committee that reported the bill Mr. Buckalew, of Penn- 
sylvania, moved to strike out this section. The section read : 

Section 38, Section 2, chapter 52, acts of 1879, is hereby amended by striking- 
out all after the Avords " by the clerk of such court " as far as and including the 
words " placed therein." 

Speaking to the motion, Mr. Culberson said : 

Mr. Speaker. Tlie provision contained in the thirty-eighth section of this. 



THE FORCE BILL. 41 

"bill develops as clearly the gross partisan character of the measure as any other 
provision in the bill,, and the motion of my friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Buckalew], ought to prevail. 

**** ** ** * ** 

The proposition of the Committee on Elections of members of Congress, as 
presented by this section of the bill under consideration, is to amend the act of 
1879 by striking out all that relates to the appointment of a commission to act 
with the clerk in placing the names of suitable persons in a box from v^^hich the 
jurors for each term of the court are to be drav^n. 

If this proposition should become the law what would be the result ? 

The answer is plain. The clerk of the court would then be required by law to 
place the names of the persons in the box, and to draw from the box the number 
of names required to compose the juries for the term. 

Perhaps I ought not to say that the object of this proposed change in the law 
is to place the Eepublican party in absolute control of the machinery of the courts 
in order that Republicans may be screened from the just punishments of the law 
and political enemies intimidated, outraged, and persecuted by the perversion of 
this great and powerful arm of the Government, the judiciary, to the basest of all 
purposes. But while I will not charge such a motive on the part of any member 
of the House, such will be the inevitable effect and result if this amendment to the 
law of 1879 should become the law. 

The circuit and district judges of the United States, the district attorneys, and 
the clerks of the circuit and district courts, with here and there an exception, are 
•all Republicans, and if the change of the act of 1879, as proposed by the bill, shall 
"become law, none but Republicans will be permitted to serve as jurors. 

Our friends on the other side can not appreciate the horror with which we con- 
template such a condition. They have never lived in the South. Their courts 
iave never been polluted by the filth of partisan politics, disgraced by brutal and 
ignorant jurors, or prostituted to partisan purposes by tyrannical and unscrupulous 
judges. 

The ayes and nays were taken on the motion and the vote 
stood — yeas 139, nays 134, not voting 55. So the section was 
stricken out. On this vote four Republicans (Frank, Mo. ; 
Harmer, Pa. ; Lehlbach, IN". J., and Lind, Minn.) voted with the 
Democrats. 

Afterwards Mr. Rowell, of Illinois, chairman of the com- 
mittee, offered the following : ^ 

Add the following as a new section, to be section 38 : 

It shall be the duty of the circuit judge or judges of the United States in each 
oircuit, within one month after the passage of this act, to open a special term of 
the circuit court in and for such judicial district in their respective circuits as shall 
be most convenient to him or them ; and the said court so opened and held by said 
circuit judge or judges shall appoint for each judicial district in their respective 
circuits three discreet persons of good character and standing, who shall be 
residents of the judicial district in and for which they are named, who shall be 
known as United States juror-commissioners. It shall be the duty of said com- 
missioners to organize as a board by the selection of one of their number as 
chairman, whose duty it shall be to preside over their meetings and to give notice 
from time to time to his associates of the time and place of all meetings of said 
l»oard. The said board may act by a majority vote, and shall from time to time 
make from the qualified voters in their judicial districts a list of persons who 

6 



42 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

under the laws of the Under States and the State in which they act shall be> 
eligible for juror duty, without respect to race or color. And hereafter all panels 
for jurors, grand and petit, shall be drawn by said board in the presence of a 
district or circuit judge. All provisions of law in relation to making juror lists 
or the drawing of jurors, inconsistent with the provisions of this section, are 
hereby repealed. Ail vacancies which shall from any cause arise in said board 
shall be filled by the court making the original appointments, which court shall 
be held as provided herein for its holding for the making of such original 
appointments. 

Mr. Springek. I desire to ask my colleague [Mr. Rowell] whether this 
amendment provides that one of these officers shall be of opposite political party 
to the others ? 

Mr. RowELL. No, sir ; there is not any politics in it. [Derisive laughter on 
the Democratic side.] 

The ayes and nays on this showed 150 to 144 ; not voting 34. 
M. Lehlbach voted with the Democrats. The amendment was 
adopted. 

£xample of Fair Trials and Impartial Juries. 

Innumerable examples of the operation of Republican offi- 
cials in the selection of partisan juries to convict Democrats and 
acquit Republicans could be given, but one will suffice to show 
what can be done. The writer of the following letter has been 
promoted by the present administration to be Collector of the 
Port at Pensacola, Fla. The letter is addressed to one of those 
immaculate officers, deputy marshals, a horde of whom is pro- 
vided for by the Force bill. 

Office J. R. Mizell, United States Marshal 

FOB Northern District of Florida, 

Jacksonville, Fla., July 5, 1889. 
Sir: You will at once confer with McBulby and make out a list of fifty or 
sixty names of true and tried Republicans from your county registration list for 
jurors, United States court, and forward same to Hon. P. Walter, clerk United 
States court, and it is necessary to have them at once, as you can see. Please 
acknowledge this. 

I am, yours truly, 

JOHN R. MIZELL, 

United States Marshal. 
C. C. Kirk, Esq., De Land, Fla. 

Please get the names of the parties as near steamboat and railroad stations 
as possble. * 

Part of tlie Force in the Bill— Army at the Polls. 

Mr. Henry Cobot Lodge has been employed in telling the 
people in various localities that there are no bayonets and is no 
force in this bill. 

Section thirty-two of the bill re-enacts section 1989 of the 
Revised Statutes, which reads as follows: 

It shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person as he 



THE FORCE BILL. "f 43 

may empower for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces 
of the United States, or of the militia, as may be necessary to aid in the execution 
of judicial process issued under any of the preceding provisions, or as shall be 
necessary to prevent the violation and enforce the due execution of the provisions 
of this title. 

A motion was made to strike this out. Upon that motion 
Hon. J. H. Blount said: 

This title relates to civil rights. Hitherto it has never been held to relate to 
elections, but a provision in this bill declares that this section, hitherto confined in 
its operation to the matters enumerated in the chapter relating to civil rights, shall 
hereafter be made to apply to the subject of this bill. The language of the bill 
(section 32) is that " each and every" of the several sections of the Revised Statutes 
enumerated (this being one of them), and their provisions, are made to refer 
and apply to this act with the same force and effect as if it were specifically 
mentioned or referred to therein, save as the same shall be changed or modified by 
the terms of this act. 

You place a body of supervisors at the polls, and any interference with their 
authority on the part of any person is declared to be unlawful, and subjects the 
person or persons interfering to arrest and punishment, and here you provide for 
troops to be under the direction of these supervisors. You had before, and you 
have now, on your statute book, section 2003 of the Revised Statutes, which, 
provides that — 

No military or naval officer, or other person engaged in the civil, military, or 
naval service of the United States, shall order, bring, keep, or have under his 
authority or control, any troops or armed men at the place where any general 
or special election is held in any State, unless it be necessary to repel the armed 
•enemies of the United States, or to keep the peace at the polls. 

You already have the power to use the army for the purpose of keeping the 
peace at the polls. You have used it in the past. You have terrorized voters in the 
past, but you are not content with that. You propose now to arm these supervisors 
everywhere with the power to use the army. That is the wicked purpose of this 
provision. How can the gentleman escape from this conclusion ? He can not say 
that the use of the army is required to keep the peace. That is already provided 
for by law. But he goes further and injects into this bill this section of the 
Revised Statutes, which until this moment has never been invoked in relation to 
the elective franchise. 

Mr. Speaker. You have arranged for partisan supervisors in this bill. Yon 
have arranged for partisan returning-boards. You have organized your courts for 
these wicked purposes ; and, expecting that all this may produce discontent and 
■disorder on the part of the people, you now propose to surround these supervisors 
of election with soldiers to come and go at their beck and call. For what purpose ? 
To make the voters feel that they are under the terrors of military authority, as 
you have done in the past. Not that the soldiers are necessarily to use their 
weapons, but that they are to terrorize the voters ; just as an important Republican 
of South Carolina once said, that the object in disarming the whites and organizing 
and arming the negroes was to cow the weak and poor and humble white men of 
that section and keep them from the polls. This provision is intended to have a 
moral effect upon the voters throughout the Southern section of the country, to 



44 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

make them feel tlie uncertainty of their liberties, and it is your hope that by means 
of this terrorism you shall triumph in the elections. [xVpplause on the Democratic 
side.] 

Mr. McKiNLEY spoke for the first time on this amendment. 
Replying to him, Hon. Benton McMillin said : 

Mr. McMillin. Mr. Speaker, the leader of the House [IMr. McKinley] has 
seen fit to keep his silence unbroken until the question came up as to whether or 
not troops should be sent to the polls. It would have been better for him if he had 
not supported that proposition. Since the praetorian guard stood upon the ramparts- 
of the Eternal City, and proclaimed that the whole Eoman world would be sold at 
auction, there has never been presented to the world so dangerous a proposition as 
that which is presented now by the representatives of the free American people^ 
Coming here and proclaiming that they are willing to go voluntarily under a des- 
potism, and to be governed by military satraps and unscrupulous deputy marshals. 
[Applause on the Democratic side.] And since Didius Julianus, urged on by the aspi- 
rations of his wife and an ambitious daughter, bought at that sale the Mistress of 
the World, and had the Roman Government delivered to him for cash, there has 
never been presented so sad a spectacle as that wherein the old ship of state is to 
be scuttled on the anniversary of her first sailing. [Applause on the Democatic side.] 

Sir, is it possible that free and happy America is to follow all the older 
republics down to the darkness and despair of despotism? Was it for this our 
fathers fought and died? Did they rebel against foreign kings to cower before 
domestic despots ? Have we so degenerated as to surrender our liberties at a less 
price than Esau obtained for his birthright and heritage ? 

It took five hundred years to enslave Rome. It required eleven hundred to* 
destroy the republic of Venice. Even then she did not go down till the foreign 
invaders marched upon them, the French legions before whom cities, countries and 
continents had alike fallens, 

Sir, will we, after the sacrifices that have been made for us, after the hopes that 
have been centered on us, cross our hands to be tied ? Will we turn loose on our 
people by this bill either soldiers or marshals of the Federal courts to drive them 
from the polls ? Will we kennel around our halls of justice a lot of hell-hounds to 
hound down our freemen and run them from the voting places. After more than 
eighteen centuries of Christianity have cheered and enlightened the Avorld, will we 
inaugurate a slavery which would disgrace the dark ages ? May Heaven forbid it l 

The gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. McKinley] has said, Mr. Speaker, that the North 
will not tolerate the existing manner of conducting elections in the South. " Who» 
art thou that judgest another man's servant ? " 

I want to announce to the gentleman from Ohio and to the country the fact 
that the time has come when there can not be in the American Republic an enslaved 
South and a free North. [Applause on the Democratic side.] You may, like the 
mad men that you are, grasp the pillars of the Constitution and pull down the 
State, but like poor, enraged, blind Samson you will perish in its wreck. [Renewed 
applause on the Democratic side.] 

Mr. Speaker. Gentlemen seem to forget — the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
McKinley] forgets — that General Grant's power over his party in this country was 
broken by his efforts to pass the force bill. This is a more infamous and incom- 
parably damnable bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge], the au- 
thor of the bill, forgets that when troops went into the state-house of Louisiana 



THE FORCE BILL. 45 

in 1875 and drove out the Legislature at the point of the bayonet, the citizens of 
Boston, be it said to their everlasting credit, rose as one man and proclaimed that 
military rule in this country was not to be tolerated. They rose as their fathers 
had to throw the tea overboard and to defy the usurper. [Applause on the Demo- 
cratic side.] 

Gentlemen, you mistake the spirit of the American people. Republics, it is 
true, have arisen, have flourished for a time, and have fallen. You are making an 
effort to produce the most signal failure of free government recorded in the his- 
tory of all time. You can not do it. The American people, born free, living free, 
will die free. They will send you down into your political graves for this attempt 
to destroy their freedom. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

Sir, it is said that when Ulysses, the hero of the Trojan war, was returning to 
Ithica, his home, he was shipAvrecked on the Isle of Ogygia. Calypso, the nymph 
of the isle, entreated him to remain, and promised him eternal youth if he would 
do so. Although his home was an island in the ocean, only 44 square miles in ex- 
tent, he preferred age and death with his country to eternal youth without it. He 
declined the offer, and leaving Calypso dying of grief set sail for his loved Ithica. 
If such was his love for this small barren spot, a mere hawk's nest on the rocks of 
ocean, what love should not characterize the citizens of proud and glorious America 
for this great land which an all- wise Providence has given us. 

Mr. Speaker, so great do I conceive our perils to be that, if I could make a 
wish, which, being recorded in heaven, would be fulfilled as occasion arises, I 
would ask, not for the extension of our boundaries or the multiplicity of our terri- 
tories, although these would give us greater dominion ; I would not ask for the 
widening of our harbors or the deepening of our rivers, although these v,^ould give 
us greater commerce ; I would not ask for finer furnaces and factories or more fer- 
tile fields, although these would increase our wealth ; but better far than this, than 
these, than all, I would ask for the perpetuity of the liberties of my countrjonen, 
and I would pray that he who lays violent hands upon the Constitution of my 
country for the purpose of destroying our liberties, might drop dead, as did the 
disobedient Jew who laid his sacrilegious hands without authority on the ark of 
the covenant of the living God. [Great applause on the Democratic side.] 

Upon this question the ayes were 146 ; nays, 156 ; not voting, 
26 ; Mr. Lehlbach again voted with the Democrats. 

So the bill as it passed the House authorizes the President 
to use the army and the navy to preserve the peace at the polls 
or to aid in the enforcement of the law. Under this provision 
the President may, prior to any election, order troops to any 
State in the Union for the ostensible purpose to aid in the enforce- 
ment of the law, and they may be used, as they have in the past 
been used, to influence and control the elections. 

More Force— SnperTisors and Deputy Marshals. 

Under the present law, enacted principally through the 
efforts of the Hon. Samuel J. Randall, the number of deputy 
marshals that can be appointed is limited. This law was forced 
because of outrageous abuses of power by the marshals. 

The Force bill repeals this law and provides that the super- 



46 ^ DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

visor and marshal may, '' in confidence," appoint as many deputy 
marshals as they think proper. 

The whole country is familiar with some of the outrages 
perpetrated by deputy marshals, and a few examples only need 
be cited. 

These examples are cited from the Record, in order that 
there may be no question as to their authenticity. 

Hon. C. R. BucKALEW, of Penn., said: 

Now, it is well known that great abuses occur in the administration of these 
[the present] comparatively speaking, modest and moderate laws. For instance, a. 
great number of deputy marshals were appointed in the large cities, in many in- 
stances jail-birds, men who had served tenns in prison. The roughs and rowdies 
of the cities who could exercise a certain amount of brute influence were appointed 
deputy marshals, and great expense resulted to the Government without any benefit. 
It was so in Philadelphia and elsewhere, and public opinion in Northern cities rose 
up against the administration of those laws. I know it was so in Philadelphia, 
and I believe it was so elsewhere, and the consequence was that Congress passed 
an act limiting the number of deputy marshals that could be employed at elections, 
an act which was proposed by the late Mr. Randall, and now remaining upon the 
statute-book, but which this bill repeals. Public opinion operated upon that legis- 
lation and checked its mischief, so that we hear very little about it now. How- 
ever, under those laws there is sufficient power to appoint persons representing the 
United States in every Southern city of the Union, and in every district where it 
can be pretended that inspection and supervision are needed or will be useful. 
Nobody is proposing to repeal those laws, yet they are not enforced. 

Hon. J. H. OuTHWAiTE, of Ohio : 

I yesterday described the character of some deputy marshals that have been 
appointed heretofore to guard an election in a city in Ohio, and I cite the report of 
a committee of the Congress of the United States to sustain me in the assertion 
that among the deputy marshals then appointed there were criminals of the worst 
kind : • 

That the deputy marshals appointed by Marshal Wright were largely in excess 
of the necessities of the situation. 

That they were appointed as Republican partisans and political workers, and 
in most cases prostituted their official positions to partisan ends. 

That they were armed with revolvers and other deadly weapons furnished by 
the national committee of the Republican party. 

That many of such deputy marshals so appointed and armed were notorious 
criminals and men of known vicious and brutal habits, and many of them were 
non-residents of the State of Ohio. 

That many of such deputy marshals, acting under the orders of Marshal 
A7right, aided, abetted, and encouraged fraudulent voting, intimidation of voters, 
v r.d committed gross outrages upon the elective franchise and tJie rights of honest 
voters. 

And the report of the minority, signed by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
McMillikin), I believe, does not say that this was not true, but says that out of 
liiteen hundred %',ot Diore than a dozen of them were the criminals tliat they are 
charged to have been in Ihc report of the majority. 



THE FORCE BILL. 47 

Hon. J. J. Hemphill, of South Carolina : 

In 1876, in one city in this country, there were 11,615 deputy marshals ap- 
pointed to guard and scrutinize and supervise the voters ; of those 155 were at one 
poll, and in addition to the 11,000 deputy marshals there were 6,000 supervisors. 

Mr. TuKNEK, of Georgia. Where was that ? 

Mr. Hemphill. That was in New York City, in 1876. Now, I ask, gentle- 
men, can there be any honest reason for putting one hundred and fifty-five of 
those officials at one polling place when there are many polling places in the 
United States that do not have half that number of voters ? And if the supervisor 
can put 155 officers at one polling place, why may he not put two hundred and 
fifty-five or one thousand at one polling place ? Why, sir, I remember an election 
in South Carolina, in 1876, when there were a thousand United States soldiers sent 
to watch the polls in one county. We are not afraid of this bill personally, for 
many of us have marched in front of the glittering bayonets of the soldiers of 
the United States to cast our votes as freemen. The Government sent a thousand 
soldiers into our county and the result was that every one of them is said to have 
voted the Democrat ticket, and we had a bigger majority than we ever had before 
in our lives. [Laughter,] In 1876 there were nearly five thousand deputy marshals 
and over four thousand supervisors appointed in one place. I have some figures 
here taken from a speech of Mr. Carlisle delivered in this House on April 17, 
1879, showing that in May, 1878, the chief supervisor of elections in New York 
City had one of his assistants to swear to a single complaint against ninety-three 
hundred persons of foreign birth whose naturalization papers had been issued to 
them in 1868, and on which they had voted ever since that time. On this com- 
plaint the same supervisor, as clerk of the court, issued five thousand and four 
warrants returnable before himself as commissioner of the court. Every one of 
these warrants was illegal, because the complaint contained more than one name. 
When the warrants were set aside the supervisor had twenty-eight hundred more 
complaints made out, and issued warrants upon them. Thirty-four hundred 
naturalized citizens surrendered their papers to escape this partisan persecution. 
A few days before the election in November, thirty-two hundred more complaints 
were sworn out. 

Among the instructions given by the chief supervisor to his subordinates was 
the following: 

In the case of persons who present themselves to vote, where a warrant has 
been previously issued, you will see that such persons are arrested upon the war- 
rant upon so presenting themselves, and before wting. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts has alluded to the number of persons who 
voted at one election in some portion of New York City and who did not vote at 
the succeeding election. Within six months, if I recollect aright, he says the 
number of votes in certain wards in that city fell off several thousand. Possibly 
the above stated action on the part of this chief supervisor furnishes the ex- 
planation for this decrease in the votes cast. 

If this is intended for an honest and fair scheme, if we want to get at what 
our friend from Massachusetts seems so earnestly to desire — a proper representa- 
tion on this floor of the full vote of the people — then let us limit the number of 
appointees, so that there will be no danger of having more officers to watch the 
voters than there will be voters to be watched. Surely no gentleman on the otlier 
side of the House will object to this reasonable proposition. 



48 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The supervisor chooses one-third of the deputy marshals, 
and the marshal must appoint those chosen. 

The supervisors themselves have police powers, the same as 
the deputy marshals. 

The supervisors and deputy marshals must, if placed on 
trial at all for their outrages, be tried before Federal courts, 
before the judges that participate in the administration of this 
law, and by juries selected and summoned by themselves and 
their fellow criminals. 

H.nowii4>tlii]igisiii in tlie IBill. 

Upon the provisions for the control of naturalization, able 
speeches were made by Democratic members. 

The following extracts will show the position they took. 

Hon J. L Chipman, Michigan, said: 

I notice, too, there is peculiar venom in the bill against the naturalized citi- 
zens ; that they are treated as suspects, and may be dogged by spies and harrassed 
when they try to exercise their right to vote. You have all the machinery to annoy 
the citizen, to terrify, to cajole, to corrupt him. You have at the public expense 
political minute-men to keep watch and ward of your partisan fortunes, an army 
of spies and informers, under political leadership, encamped at the hearthstones of 
the people; but, sir, you can not, even by this enginery, subjugate the people. 

Hon. Wm. S. Holman, Indiana: 

In addition to this autocratic power conferred by the bill on the chief super- 
visor in the selection of supervisors to do his bidding, he may require the United 
States marshals to appoint a number of deputy marshals to aid him in controlling 
the elections in his State, only limited by his will. The provision of the bill in 
this respect is as follows: 

Special deputy marshals, when required by the chief supervisor of elections, 
shall aid and assist the supervisors of elections in making the house canvass pro- 
vided for by this act ; the number of special deputy marshals who may, under any 
provision of law, be appointed for election purposes, shall be determined from 
time to time at conferences between the marshal and the chief supervisor of elec- 
tions, and no other or greater number of special deputy marshals shall be appointed 
than the chief supervisor of elections shall from time to time certify to be in his 
opinion necessary to observe the manner in which the election officers [of the State] 
are discharging their duties to enforce the election laws of the United States, and 
to prevent frauds and irregularities in naturalization. 

Despotic government could hardly go further than this bill does in investing 
irresponsible power in a satrap. The United States circuit judge shall appoint as 
many supervisors as he may deem necessary, and the Unitect States marshal shall 
appoint as many deputy marshals as he may deem necessary, and these supervisors 
and deputy marshals are under his absolute control. 

Before the elections they are to be emploj^ed in overhauling and correcting the 
registrations in States wliere the registration of voters is required, and in the over- 
hauling the records of the naturalization of foreign-born citizens, and in watching 
the proceedings of the courts in cases of naturalization. Spies and public informers 
in the discreditable work of finding technical defects in the naturalization of citi- 
zens to deprive them of the right of suffrage! A mean, petty system of espionage 



THE FORCE BILL. 49 

-on the citizens of our country! See how elegantly this system of spies and in- 
formers, this debasing espionage on the courts of justice, is expressed: 

Fourteenth. To observe and scrutinize the manner in which naturalizations 
are made and to aid the court in the matter of preventing fraudulent naturaliza- 
tions, and for these purposes to have at all times free access to all rooms where 
such proceedings are being conducted. 

Has any government, no matter how despotic, ever before appointed spies to 
watch the proceedings of its courts of justice ? 

How steadily history repeats itself. The Know-Nothing crusade of 1854, the 
most infamous incident in our history, came from New England, and now in a new 
form and under the sanction of law purposes to renew its old-time proscription 
and intolerance of persons of foreign birth. It will be interesting to see how gen- 
tlemen representing large constituencies of foreign birth, who by an invitation 
have come to our shores and have become citizens of the Republic and upheld its 
flag in the late war with invincible courage, will vote on this question. 

**^f'f5-** ***** 

This bill, this wretched combination of Federalism and Know-Nothingism, 
both outgrowths of the politics of New England, both of which isms have heretofore 
received the merited condemnation of the ximerican people, may become a law. No 
period in our time has exhibited such a subserviency of the majority controlling the 
House to its leader as the present. Both Federalism and Know-Nothingism were 
condemned by the American people long ago, because both were destitute of true 
patriotism and both w^ere un-American. The bill seeks to revive Federalism and 
Know-Nothingism as forces in our political system, the one condemned and rejected 
early in the present century by our fathers, the founders of the republic, the other 
in more recent years by the enlightened judgment of the American people, as un- 
patriotic, un-American, and unfriendly to our republican foim of Government. 

Hon. William McAdoo, of New Jersey, an Irishman by 
l)irth : 

Now, in the brief time allowed me, I shall not be able to go over the provisions 
of this bill as I would like to, but I want to call the attention of the House to one 
feature which is worthy of consideration. It is eminently fitting that in the most 
strongly pronounced Hamiltonian measure which has been introduced in Congress 
since the beginning of the civil war that the old leaven of Know-Nothingism 
should peep out in this Federal-Whiggery bill. 

Ail the citizens of the United States are to be harrassed and obstructed enough 
by this bill, but the foreign-born citizen has been especially singled out by pro- 
visions which look to so much annoyance, so much espionage, so much hounding by 
the hired spies of the Government, that he will be intimidated from casting a free 
Taallot. Why, this bill provides that these chief supervisors were ministerial offi- 
cers of the Federal court, shall go into the State tribunals and supervise there, in 
courts where they have no business, the naturalization of foreign-born citizens. 
Why, it is a sham and a delusion to talk about State rights and State sovereignty, 
and the liberties of citizenship, or the equalization of citizens, foreign and native 
when a mere satrap, a mere paid mercenary, at $5 per day, appointed by the 
Federal Government, appointed at second hand, can go into the State court and 
supervise the naturalization of the foreign-born citizen. 

Let the adopted citizens of this land, who yield to none in devotion to American 
institutions, and among whom, are not a few like myself, vrhose kith and kin, and 



50 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

maybe immediate ancestors, shed their blood to secure our liberty in Revolutionary 
days, and devoted their best years to making permanent the Republic, and who 
to-day, as in the past, would glory in dying for it, read the following paragraph of 
the bill : 

To make, in any city or town having 20,000 inhabitants or upward, at any 
time between the Tuesday five weeks preceding the day of any election at which a 
Representative or Delegate in Congress is to be voted for and the day of election, 
a thorough and effective house-to-house canvass of the whole or any portion of 
any election district or voting precinct which they shall be directed by the chief 
supervisor of elections to visit and canvass; to ascertain by inquiry at any dwelling, 
building, or other place of abode, in any such election district or voting precinct 
which they may be required to so canvass, the name, age, nativity, term of residence 
in country. State, city, county, parish, district, or precinct, and other qualifications 
as a voter, of every male person therein residing ; to make full report, in writing, 
to the chief supervisor of elections of all answers and information obtained by them 
in response to their inquiries so made, and, upon the completion of their work, to 
file their reports with said chief supervisor. 

Twelfth. To make, in any city or town having 20,000 inhabitants or upward, 
when required by the chief supervisor, a list of all such persons as shall be natura- 
lized in any court therein, the date of their naturalization, whether as a minor or 
otherwise, with the residence of such persons, their place of nativity, and the 
name and residence of their witness, and, for such purpose, shall have at all times 
access to and the right to examine the original affidavits or applications presented, 
or which have been presented, to said courts and there filed. Such lists so made 
shall be filed in the office of the chief supervisor. 

Thirteenth. To inform all voters, who may inquire of them, in what box any 
of their ballots should properly be placed, and to prevent, as far as possible, the 
depositing of any ballot in the wrong box. 

This thirteenth is a nice plan to scrutinize the ballot ! 

Fourteenth. To observe and scrutinize the manner in which naturalizations 
are being made, and to aid the court in the matter of preventing fraudulent natural- 
izations, and for these purposes to have at all times free access to all rooms wliere 
such proceedings are being conducted. 

The provisions of this subdivision to apply only to such discreet or special 
supervisors as shall, from time to time, be directed and detailed by the chief super- 
visor of elections for tliis particular duty, in cities or towns having 20,000 inhabit- 
ants and upward, save that when a chief supervisor of elections shall have reason 
to believe that actual fraud or perjury has been, is being, or is about to be com- 
mitted in the matter of naturalization in any particular city, town, village, or otlier 
place having less tlian 20,000 inhabitants, he shall take measures to ascertain tlie 
facts, and expose and prevent tlie same, and in so doing may detail such supervisors 
of election as he may select to aid him therein, and such supervisors shall have all 
the power and authority conferred upon supervisors in cities of 20,000 inhabitants 
and upward. 

And it provides further, that in order to harrass, obstruct and annoy this man 
who has been naturalized, they shall make, five weeks preceding the election, a 
domiciliary visit to every house. And you will notice that this bill does not say 
they shall inquire of the man himself as to his age, nativity, when he was natural- 
ized, etc., but they shall make inquiries in the dwelling. Why, the old English 
adage which our fathers brought over to this land, that a man's house is his castle, 
finds no place under this bill. The man's dwelling is to be invaded, his charter of 
citizenship, the most sacred thing in his eyes, is to be investigated by hearsay evi- 
dence of anybody in the dwelling. For this "discreet" spy is to go in the dwelling 
five weeks before the election and make inquiries of anybody. 

It does not specify of whom he is to make inquiries, but he is to collect the 
neighborhood gossip, to invade the sanctity of the dwelling-place, to go to the 



THE FORCE BILL. 51 

house when the man is absent, to harrass the women and the children and the 
people whom he may find there, to inquire as to when this man was naturalized, 
the validity of his papers, and the names of his witnesses who certified to his nat- 
uralization, when such witnesses may be dead. Take an unmarried naturalized 
workman in a large city, whose residence in a boarding-house changes, may be, 
frequently, to follow his work, or for any cause. And these Federal police would 
follow him up as if he were a criminal, covering him with suspicion in every house 
where he found a lodgment And these men are to be continued in office for two 
months. 

My friends, that is not an idle provision of this bill. They continue these men 
as officials for two months in order that by threatening and intimidating the voter 
in large cities when he is about to vote, and then by having over his head this 
standing army of spies, threatening to arrest him, he will never vote again in that 
city, or if he votes against them that the partisan grand jury provided for in this 
bill shall be made to promptly indict him. That is this meaning of it. [Applause 
on the Democratic side.] 

Now, the whole thing proceeds upon the theory that there is absolute fraud in 
every naturalization ; down in the heart of this bill is opposition to the naturaliza- 
tion laws. It proceeds upon the political theory that the adopted citizens of the 
United States are not voting the Republican ticket. That is the meat of this por- 
tion of the bill. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I say to gentlemen on the 
other side, to honest, fair-minded men on the other side, if you pass this measure 
you will not get the vote of a foreign-born citizen of the United States by any such 
drastic and revolutionary measure. 

There is no danger signal certainly that you can fly in their face so repugnant 
to them as a strong centralized government. They themselves have come to this 
country as a people to escape from strong governments. They have felt the strong 
arms of the governments in Europe. They have been ground to the earth by gov- 
ernmental oppression ; they dared a grave in the great waste of water to escape 
the tyranny of such codes and statutes. The adopted citizen took his family and 
household gods and came into a new land, severing ties that wrung his very heart ; 
he has sworn allegiance to our flag and Constitution, has sworn to maintain for 
himself and all the inhabitants of this great and blessed land the fullest liberty 
Avhich is guaranteed by the Constitution, to be of you, and with you, and for you 
to the death, and you meet him with a revolutionary, dangerous, and drastic 
measure, which could not be passed "in a free parliament in Europe to-day. [Loud 
applause on the Democratic side.] 

Was it for this that Washington eulogized his services in the Revolutionary 
struggle, when his sword flashed from Lexington to Yorktown, and his principles 
were enunciated at Mecklenburg ? Was it for this that the best blood of his heart 
made slippery the steeps of Fredericksburgh and Gettysburgh? No, no. I can 
not believe that you intend to pass such a bill as this in the American House of 
Representatives. It is a mad thought, born of the night, which will flee from you, 
I trust, in the sunlight of fair discussion. 

InTading the Home of the Citizen— Bribery and 
Intimidation. 

Hon. RoswELL P. Flower, of New York : 

The framers of this bill are not, however, content to stop at a usurpation of 
the authority of the community, but extend their interference with the rights of the 



52 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

people to the individuals composing the community by providing for a house-to- 
house canvass, sending the supervisors and deputy marshals to force an entrance,, 
if need be, into the houses of the people to " verify by proper inquiry and exami- 
nation at the respective places of residence " of voters the correctness of the regis- 
tration books, and to make " a thorough and effective house-to-house canvass" of 
election districts to ascertain the qualifications of male voters residing there. 
The only commendable feature of this whole provision lies in the exemption, by 
insertion of the word " male," of the female suffragists in Wyoming and elsewhere 
from the inquisitorial impudence of these eminently respectable Republican 
Federal office-holders in their endeavors to divide the floaters into blocks of five, 
with a trusted man with necessary funds in charge of each five, responsible that 
none get away, and that all vote the Republican ticket. 

The legal maxim that a man's house is his castle, honored by the Anglo-Saxon 
race throughout time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, is 
to be eliminated from our system of law and in its place is to be substituted the pro- 
vision that wherever it is suspected that the Republican party can purchase^ 
intimidate oi otherwise influence a voter to its advantage, then a supervisor and 
deputy marshal may go with all the power of the General Government at their 
backs. If this condition of affairs is permitted long to exist in this country, with 
men of the character of those who too frequently fill the positions of supervisors 
and deputy marshals to avail themselves of the opportunities thus open to them, 
the spirit of liberty is more patient and long suffering than the history of our race, 
will warrant us in believing it to be. 

Hon. C. R. BucKALEW, Pennsylvania : 

And, what is more, you provide in all cities of over 20,000 (and there are a 
large number of that class in my own State) that a canvass from house to house is 
to be made by the precinct supervisors, under the direction of their chief, and that 
deputy-marshals shall assist in the canvass — the $5-a-day boys. 

An election jDrecinct in Philadelphia, or in a town in that State of the popu- 
lation required, will be canvassed by supervisors and marshals, the number of the 
latter unlimited, all canvassers, proceeding from house to house, under the direction 
of the district supervisor. They will take a list of the names of every voter, his. 
residence, his age, the number of his house, and where he was born. They will go 
to all the boarding-houses, to all the corners of the cities and find every name, the 
nativity of every voter, his naturalization papers will be inspected, and his politics, 
of course, ascertained. And this list, accompanied by statements which these can- 
vassers may Vv^rite out — not in any legal form — are to be sent to the district 
supervisor a sufficient time before the election to enable him to have upon his 
table a perfect and complete representation of the voting population of the district,, 
with all the minute particulars of each individual. In other words, the ordinary 
expenses of political parties, and the necessity for canvassing districts before the 
election to see about the voters, and to prepare for the election ; all of the expenses 
for this work, the millions of dollars now borne by political parties is — as far as 
the one party is concerned, the one that controls these officers — to be transferred 
from the party and charged upon the Treasury of the United States. [Applause on 
the Democratic side.] 



THE FORCE BILL. 53^ 

Aiiiericaii Principle of Hoiaie Rule. 

In the vain hope of influencing the votes of Irishmen in 
America the Republican platform of 1888 had the following 
expression: 

We earnestly hope tliat we may soon congratulate our fellow-citizens of Irish 
birth upon the peaceful recovery of Home Rule for Ireland. 

The Force bill is an illustration of the Republican party- & 
idea of home rule for America, and may be taken as an indica- 
tion of what it hopes to see elsewhere. 

Hon. Jos. W. Covert, of New York, in one of the most bril- 
liant speeches made on the bill, said: 

In other words, official canvassing in the interest of the party in control at 
the time will supersede the necessity of individual contributions of money for such 
purpose ; and when Mr. Wanamaker or some live ambitious person carries $400,000' 
in a campaign to the city of New York, it would not be necessary to expend any 
part of it in canvassing the State or city of New York, or any other part of the 
country. That will be done at the expense of the United States, at the expense 
of all the people, say $10,000,000 a year, all furnished by the Government. Some 
of it may be expended for printing, some for expenses of a national committee,, 
some for various other services in connection with the election, but the bulk can. 
be applied to the ultimate object — the purchase of votes. [Renewed applause on. 
the Democratic side,] All these things can be done, and your jnachinery provides 
a mode for doing it. This bill makes such purchase of votes safe and free, and why ? 
Because you have three supervisors, representing the authority that appoints 
them, in sight of the election room ; they are spies upon every voter. The secrecy 
of the ballot is gone absolutely. In an election held in my own State the ticket of 
every voter is numbered when he votes. The ticket is taken and put into the box 
by the election officers. 

The bribes that can be given may control the election, and where it does not 
happen to turn out as is expected, the officers who hold their office at the will of 
that party, and are its creatures and subservient to its purposes, will see to it that 
the counting of the ballots is made to utter the voice which it desires the ballot-box 
to proclaim. Under this act, with its multitudinous army of officers, none of whom 
are responsible to the people ; all of whom are appointed by partisans ; all of whom 
are tempted by the pay ; most of whom must necessarily come from those most 
easily corrupted, there is danger. 

I will not say that that danger is certain, for I believe that it will be averted by 
a revolt of the American people; but, I repeat, there is danger of the power at 
Washington selecting such districts as can be won by fraudulent means, by a con- 
spiracy between the appointing power and those who are corrupted by the bribes, 
offered by this bill, and then such number of Representatives may be chosen as will 
make, in point of fact, the House of Representatives selected by the machinery of 
this bill, and not by the voters at the polls. It is true that when the three hundred 
and thirty Representative districts are examined, a shrewd and well-informed poli- 
tician can calculate that a certain number of districts will undoubtedly go Demo- 
cratic, and a certain number will go undoubtedly Republican. The residium put 
down as doubtful is the prize of contending parties. This bill gives to the party 



54 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

in power the opportunity to select through the machinery that it creates the Repre- 
sentatives from those doubtful districts, and thus control the House of Repre- 
sentatives. 

From these extracts it may easily be seen that the bill is 
intended to avoid the difficulties of fat frying and the annoy- 
ance of contests in individual cases, by bribery out of the money 
raised by taxing the people and by a wholesale predetermination 
of elections. 

To make the law as obnoxious as possible to the principle of local self-govern- 
ment, power is given to the chief supervisor to transfer any subordinate from his 
home district to any other part of the Congressional district affected and for this 
subordinate to perform his duties among people whom he does not know, and who 
do not know him. In cities or towns of 20,000 inhabitants this possible stranger 
may, under instructions from the chief supervisor, " make a thorough house-to- 
house canvass," and ascertain the name, age, nativity, term of residence in county, 
State, or district, "and other qualifications as a voter" of every male person 
therein residing, to make a list of all naturalized persons and the names of their 
witnesses. 

The echoes of the protests of an indignant people over the inquisitorial char- 
acter of the work of the present census have not yet died away ; but I submit that 
these sections of the pending measure are infinitely more obnoxious than anything 
committed to the hands of the census enumerator and which provoked general and 
merited adverse criticism. 

Mr. Bunnell. Will my friend from New York yield for a question ? 

Mr. Covert. Certainly, sir ; though my time is limited. 

Mr. Bunnell. Is not the gentleman from New York aware of the fact that 
these questions which appear in the census blanks of this year are precisely similar 
\o those which appear in the census blanks of England and of all the civilized 
nations of Europe ? 

Mr. Covert. Possibly all this may be so. I do not challange the statement 
of the gentleman from Minnesota, [Mr. Dunnell] about that, but I want to remind 
my friend from Minnesota, and I want to remind gentlemen generally on the other 
side, that in the monarchial countries of Europe governments have for hundreds 
of years sported at will with the rights of the people, and have treated these rights 
with contempt. [Loud applause on the Democratic side.] I want to remind my 
friend from Minnesota that this is not an empire. [Renewed applause.] That we 
live to-day, thank God, in a free Republic. [Renewed applause.] I want to 
remind gentlemen on the other side that this Republic still lives, and that we live 
under it, despite the efforts that have been and are being made by you of the 
majority to weaken and destroy the virtues of republican institutions. [Loud and 
continued applause.] 

Hon. J. L. Chipman, Michigan: 

It is a bold step toward consolidation. It is consolidation, centralization in 
its most positive form. It is the end of popular government. It is the final au- 
thoritative utterance of the doctrine that the people are unfit to govern themselves 
in the old-fashioned way, through their local oflicers; that the township and 
county authorities, the executive and Legislatures of States shall be curbed, and 
bitted, and ridden by the irresponsible appointees of the most despotic and irre- 
sponsible officers of the Government. It is a proclamation of imperialism. 



THE FORCE BILI.. 55 

Hon. W. C. P. Breckinridge, Kentucky: 

It is a measure modeled after the force bills passed by an English Parliament 
for Irish constituency and defended on precisely the same grounds. Menda- 
cious slanders of the people of the weaker sections ; exaggerated and sensational 
reports of occasional acts of violence ; passionate appeals to the people of other 
sections ; petty persecutions and irritating annoyances by an unscrupulous con- 
stabulary ; offensive and insulting charges thrown at the representatives ; urgent 
party persuasion characterize in common those who pass force bills there and 
press force bills here. 

Hon. Wm. McAdoo, New Jersey: 

The cardinal principles of American liberty which they [the founders of th& 
Government] evolved in the United States Constitution, were these : Federal Unity, 
Local Sovereignty and Individual Liberty — a heaven-born trinity to bless mankind. 
From the moment that this grand American idea, which may be called the very 
quintessence and soul of the Constitution, was enunciated by these men, it started 
out for universal conquest. It stirred the soul of France. A strong, centralized, 
oppressive Government, absolutism and feudalism, went up in the burning rafters 
of the Bastile. To the Irish patriots, who had struggled for seven hundred years 
for liberty and nationality, this grand cardinal principle flamed out in their dark- 
ened heavens like the cross of Constantine, with its motto, " In hoc signo vinces.^^ 

It thundered in the British Parliament and in the Irish House of Commons ; 
it illuminated the pathway of the martyrs of that land on their way to the dun- 
geon, the gibbet, and to life-long, weary exile in the wild forests of the antipodes ; 
it nerved the arm of Poland to strike at the rude, barbaric strong government of 
Northeastern Europe ; it shook the throne of Austria and begat a free Parliament 
in Hungary ; it sweeps to-day in triumph along the confines of the northern seas 
in Norway and Sweden ; it reigns eternal in the mountains of Switzerland ; it is 
the dominant idea among all the republics of South America ; it created the con- 
federacy of the Canadian Dominion ; it marches to fresh victories in the great coun- 
tries of the South Pacific ; it is voiced by almost superhuman eloquence and wisdom 
in the British Parliament by a Gladstone, and it thunders in the Spanish Senate 
from a Castelar, and finds multitudinous advocates the world around from lesser if 
not less-zealous men, while here on this'beautiful June day, in the year 1890, in the 
American Congress, in the house of its professed friends, it is proposed by this in- 
famous measure to strike it to the very heart by a bill which, taking the political 
and all other conditions, existing in the two countries, into consideration, would 
not be fathered by the reactionary Salisbury in the Parliament of the country from 
which we wrung our now-imperiled liberties by the sword. 

That is the response of one of ' ' our fellow citizens of Irish 
birth " to this manifestation of the Republican party's devotion 
to home rule. 

Hon. Richard Vaux, Pennsylvania : 

Now, this extract which I am about to read is from the Philadelphia moming^ 
newspaper. The statement in the paragraph is that Judge Harlan, of the United 
States Supreme Court (the nine gentlemen in black), in an address delivered before 
the University of Michigan, made use of this language : 



'o6 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOC*. 

While the national rights must be respected, it is no less important to recognize 
the existence and authority of State rights, for to the States we must look primarily 
for our liberty. The States are the foundation upon which rests the whole super- 
structure of the United States. Without the States under the Constitution we 
would have no government. 

While the national rights must be respected, it is no less important to recognize 
the existence and authority of State rights ; for to the State we must look primarily 
for our liberties. 

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we must look to the States for the manner of holding 
elections, and for the right to hold elections, and for those who are to hold the 
elections, the people of the several States. 

Judge Harlan continues : 

The States are the foundation upon which rest the whole superstructure of the 
United States. Without the States under the Constitution we would have no 
government. 

N'o, Mr. Speaker, we would have no government, except the bill which is 
presented by the majority of the Committee on Elections. [Laughter and applause.] 

Hon. Benton McMillin, Tennessee : 

Gentlemen on the other side have got tired of being elected by the people ; 
they want to be elected by the Federal courts. They have become tired of having 
a governor's name on their certificates of election ; they propose that the certifi- 
cation shall be done hereafter by Federal authority, and, as I suggested in the 
beginning, the legislative department of the Government is to be turned over to 
the control of the judiciary. Mr. Speaker, he who wrote the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence and who was spared to witness the operations of this Government, 
wrote to one of his compatriots concerning its future destiny. Mr. Jefferson, in 
a letter to Nathaniel Macon, written in 1821, said: 

Our Government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it 
will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then corruption, its 
necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; 
the two other branches, the corrupting and corrupted instruments. 

That was the language of the prophet who wrote the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, and now, on the second day before the return of that glorious anniver- 
sary, the prophecy is to be fulfilled and the Government is to be subverted. 
Rome retained her freedom five hundred years. Is it possible we will tamely, 
ignobly surrender ours in less than one hundrad and fourteen years ? No ; God 
grant, no I What does this mean ? It is no sectional question. It reaches beyond 
section ; it rises above sections. It is a question equally affecting every State in 
this Union, wherever our flag floats, wherever our eagle soars. 

We have led the world on the idea of home rule. We have got that issue by 
our example, made red-hot in England to-day. Victory is almost in the grasp of 
those who advocate local self-governments — " home rule." I ask gentlemen on 
the other side if they are willing to send the message across the water to the grand 
old patriot Gladstone that home rule is a failure, and that America itself is willing 
to adopt the opposite doctrine and to retreat from the advanced ground ? If so, 
vote for this bill and the message will go, whether you send it or not. Do it and 
your children will blush and tell that their sires ignobly surrendered what their 
grandsires' blood bought and defended. [Great applause on the Democratic 
*ide.] 



THK FORCE BILL. 57' 



ISectioiialisiii in the Bill. 



Mr. Lehlbach, Rep., JSTew Jersey, offered the following- 
amendment to take the place of the provision for the affiliation 
of the law only where petitioned for. 

Amend section 2 by striking out all after the fifth line, and inserting in lieu 
thereof the words "The chief supervisor of election for each judicial district of the 
United States shall take such action as is requisite to secure such supervision in 
every Congressional district as is provided by the laws of the United States," 

Mr. Lodge. I do not understand the purport of that amendment. 

Mr. Lehlbach. Mr. Speaker, the purport of this amendment is merely to 
strike out the first, second, and third paragraphs of section 2, and to make the law 
apply uniformly throughout this whole country. If it is desirable that the power- 
of the National Government be invoked in Congressional elections, let the law be 
made so that it can be applied to every district in the country. Let its execution 
not depend on the petition of fifty to one hundred men living or claiming to live in 
a district. 

I believe that if this amendment is adopted it will not be considered so obnox- 
ious in those sections of our country where the people now feel that, if this bill is 
passed, it is meant to operate especially against them. If it is applied uniformly 
the charge that is made by some that it is intended as sectional legislation falls to 
the ground, and I hope that every Democrat and every Republican on this floor 
will see his way clear to vote for this amendment. If adopted it will at least re- 
move that tinge of unfairness which many claim now tints this measure. 

Mr. Vaux, Pa., said in the course of his speech in the 
general debate: 

Gentlemen, if you intend to apply this law wherever a Democratic majority 
exists and to withhold the application of it where no Democratic majority exists, 
then I tell you that it will be made of universal application, and if it costs 
$15,000,000 a year of the public money to carry out this law, and if these fifteen 
millions are wrung from the sweat of the farmers and working people of the 
country, let it come, because every drop of sweat that they expend in earning the 
money to pay these fifteen millions will fertilize the soil for the growth of anti- 
Republican votes. [Applause on the Democratic side.] There is some intelli- 
gence left yet in the Democratic party; they have some knowledge of fair play;, 
and if this bill is intended to operate upon the Democracy and upon them alone,. 
I tell you gentlemen upon the other side that the Democracy will see to it that it 
is applied to their opponents as well. 

The vote on this amendment stood — yeas 132, nays 138, not 
voting 58. 

Mr. Lehlbach alone on the Kepublican side voted aye. 

Complicated and Inconsiderate. 

The objection was urged that the bill was complicated in 
construction; would be clumsy in operation; was intended to- 
afford ground for contest whenever the returns showed a Demo- 
cratic majority; would invalidate local elections as well as con- 
trol the election of presidential electors by the interference of 



-58 DE^MOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Federal officers, and was made up wholly unmindful of local 
laws now in force. 

Hon. R. P. Flower, 'New York, said: 

This bill proposes to repeal all laws and parts of laws enacted by any local au- 
thority that are inconsistent with its provisions, while leaving intact all that may 
then remain of any State's system of election laws, without regard to whether the 
parts that are left in force are consistent with each other or not. Nothing but ex- 
perience can prove the effect of this heedless legislation. It may result in leaving 
among the statutes of the States parts of laws that will prove burdensome and use- 
less if not oppressive. It can not be said with certainty that the provisions of this 
bill will fit into these various systems as proper substitutes for the parts that it re- 
peals so as to leave a harmonious and symmetrical whole. It is a thrust in the 
dark ; an attempt to alter the regulations prescribed by the States without an intel- 
ligent inquiry into the status of the laws as they now exist. Of all the inconsider- 
ate legislation of which this Congress has been and threatens to be guilty, this 
stands pre-eminent as a reckless and desperate measure to maintain a minority in 
power in the Government. Its purpose is to afford opportunity to fraud and to 
subject the elections, even in those cases in which the officers honestly endeavor to 
discharge their duties, to suspicion and uncertainty. The imperfect provisions for 
the administration of the act, the uncertain effect upon the laws of the States, the 
complicated and confused machinery of elections, the returns of defective ballots 
and of ballots deposited in the wrong boxes, together with the almost absolute con- 
trol of the elections by Federal officials, all conspire to cast doubt upon the result 
and to give to a small majority appearing upon the rolls of the House at the be- 
ginning of a Congress some pretext to annul the action of the people and to defeat 
their choice ; and we know from the experience of this session how slight a pre- 
text will suffice to still the conscience of a small majority standing face to face 
with the defeat of its cherished schemes. 

Hon. J. H. Outhwaite, Ohio: 

This bill is intended, not to have fair elections, but to prevent any elections be- 
ing held by the people in several districts in this country. This bill is calculated to 
make it possible for twice as many contested election cases in the next House as 
there are in this. Any one who will study the provisions of this bill will see that 
it is complicated. In its intricate and in its remarkable machinery it is calculated 
to prevent the common people of this land from conducting tlieir own elections. 

I have studied its provisions as carefully as I could in the brief time that has 
been allowed, and have attempted to unravel the duties of election officers, and to 
follow them through and see what tliey must do in order to provide us with a pure 
election. The result has been to find myself amid such confusion and intricacy of 
duties and of requirements that it would be impossible for an ordinary election 
officer to understand and apply them. Not ten members on the floor of this House 
would agree upon the conduct of an election under it. 

In my region, when anything is difficult to understand or to unravel, we say it 
would take a Philadelphia lawyer to unravel it. As I read this bill I said that it 
would take some one to understand its complicated and bungling terms, acuter 
shrewder, more cunning and more intellectual than a Philadelphia lawyer — it would 
take a Massachusetts scholar in politics. 



THE FORCE BILL. 59 

Hon. C. R. BucKALEW, Pa. : 

Now, wliat is this bill ? "Why, sir, building upon the modest foundation of former 
laws, we are now asked to e;iact that these officials appointed by the United States, 
instead of watching, looking on, inspecting the elections to detect anything wrong 
and report it, are to be clothed in a large degree with a power to control the elections 
themselves. For the action of State officers in registration in receiving and 
rejecting votes and in making returns, for the State machinery applicable to all 
these objects, matured by State legislation and improved from time to time, is to be 
substituted this amazing, this crude, this partisan, this mischievous and dangerous 
bill. And, if I understand its source, it was not prepared nor was it brought to our 
notice by lawyers, or judges, or statesmen, or unprejudiced men of any description. 
It was, in many of its provisions, drawn by a professional politician. It was 
sanctioned, at least in form, by what is known in modern times as a caucus — a con- 
sultation of a section of the members of this House, and then sent to the committee, 
where it was impossible to consider it, and it was not considered, except with 
reference to some amendments — not even read. Here it is in the House ; and not 
one member in ten who now hears me has read the bill ! 

Sir, in the first place I object to the authority conferred upon the chief super- 
visor, or district supervisor, as he is called in the report of the minority. He is to 
be appointed by a judge to administer this system, and he is to be one of the United 
States court commissioners now in office, until a vacancy occurs, when his 
successor may be selected. Observe, the bill is drawn to include and keep in office 
for the purposes of this bill the very man who has drawn a great portion of it — 
Davenport, of New York. 

Hon. J. B. McCreary, Ky. ; 

The intricacies and incongruities of this lengthy bill are so great that it will be 
almost impossible to have an election in accordance with its provisions, but there 
seems to be method in this, for ample power is given to the returning board, or 
board of canvassers, if this act is not strictly complied with, to certify that the 
Republican is elected. 

Hon. Charles H. Turner, New York : 

This bill, written in large part by Davenport, as a member of the committee 
has said it was, is put forward in this manner as the great party measure of this 
session, and this evening the literary gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge], 
with his long line of Tory ancestors behind him, declined to say even how much 
time he required for the discussion of an amendment, and proposed to adjourn, in 
order, I presume, that he might go and consult the real author about the discussion 
of an amendment to a section of the bill which I suppose he did not know anything 
about himself. And all this is in the interest of non-partisanship and of purity in 
politics ! Why, then, have two inspectors of your own party and only one of the 
other party? two canvassers of your own party and only one of the other? 

Hon. W. C. P. Breckinridge, Kentucky : 

This bill has fifty-seven sections, some of them containing as many as fourteen 
subdivisions ; it re-enacts twenty-nine, repeals ten, and amends six other sections 
in the Revised Statutes ; twenty-one sections create crimes and misdemeanors and 
fix penalties. It is seventy-three pages in length. It was introduced into the 



60 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK:. 

House on Saturday, June 14; was reported to the House on June 19, and was 
taken up for consideration on the 36th. Of course, such a bill can not be thor- 
oughly digested in so brief a time even if Representatives were able to devote their 
whole time to its consideration. 

This mode of legislation necessarily produces vicious results ; necessarily must 
the grave and important interests of the people be imperiled, and their righis be in 
■danger. This House ought to refuse to consider such a bill in such haste, and its 
duty to itself requires that it will not be forced by the decree of caucus, by the 
exigencies of party, or by the fear of party censure, to pass a measure so long, so 
•complicated, so revolutionary, without ample time, careful deliberation, and full 
opportunity for amendment. 

*-5C-X-* ***** * 

Under this bill the election of the President will be in the hands of the officers 
fippointed in accordance with its provisions. That this is one of its purposes seems 
to be clear ; and it may be that the States may be driven to change the time, if not 
the mode, of choosing Presidential electors. This can not be accomplished before 
the election in 1892 ; and those who have forced this measure on Congress hope to 
secure the Ffty-second and Fifty-third Congresses and the next Presidency; and 
tliese prizes w^ould repay them for all done and expended to enact this law. 

Hon. H. A. Herbert, Ala. : 

Nobody but a professional election official drew this bill with all these provi- 
sions in it. Here is one that has escaped the attention of the House up to this 
time, in this same section, section 20 : 

And it is further made the duty of the special deputy marshals, and each of 
them is hereby required, if directed by the chief supervisor of elections, to take 
charge of such returns of the canvss of the votes found in any box which under 
•existing law the chief supervisor may require to be made to him by the super- 
visors of election as rapidly as the canvass of each box is completed and the 
returns thereof are made out and signed by tlic supervisors, and to at once, in such 
manner and at such place as the chief supervisor shall direct, safely deliver to him 
all such returns so intrusted to their care and custody. 

The deputy is to take charge of the returns as soon as they are made out and 
convey them to the chief supervisor just as rapidly as the canvass of each box is 
completed. That expression in the law shows that it was gotten up b)^ a pro- 
fessional who knew more about managing elections than he did about legal 
phraseology. The deputy is to take charge of those returns and as rapidly as 
possible return them to the chief supervisor. What for? What can be the 
purpose of hurrying these returns as fast as possible to this particular officer ? If 
Mr. Davenport happened to be the supervisor, as he would be in the city of Kew 
York, for that is his business, then, as Mr. Davenport got in the returns, he would 
fully understand the situation. You are paying to keep him posted. He would 
always be able to know just how many votes his candidate needed at the boxes 
that had not been heard from. ■ 

The Bill is Unconstitutional. 

The Constitution of the United States provides : 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Repre- 
sentatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the 
Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the 
places of choosing Senators. 



THB FORCE BILL. 61 

Hon. Richard Yaux, Pennsylvania said : 

That word "manner" is a very pregnant word in this article of the Consti- 
tution, and I desire to be informed where there is any constitutional interpretation 
of it to be found. You can not judge of it in its constitutional application by the 
difinition of the lexicographer. You can not judge of it in its application here by 
any scientific definition or interpretation. It is not a philological problem. You 
must take it in the accustomed sense. You must take it as the word "manner" 
has always been understood from time immemorial — the manner of holding 
an election. Now the manner of holding — I do not think the word " holding" has 
very much to do with it, but " manner" is the crucial test of the interpretation of 
both words — the " manner " of holding involves what is habitual and accustomed, 
the habitual and accustomed manner or mode. If it is outside of that, then it is 
not the manner ; and if it is not the manner then Congress has no control over it. 

Now, how did this word "manner" come to be applied to the question of 
Iiolding elections ? There are three modes of voting or electing which can be 
comprised under the term "manner" as used in this provision of the Constitution. 
There can be a vote by ballot ; that is one manner of holding an election. There 
can be a vote viva voce; that is another manner. There can be a vote by show of 
Iiands; that is a third manner. These three "manners" have been a part of the 
system of holding elections in this country ever since it was a country. In the 
State from which the author of the majority report on this bill comes, Massachu- 
setts, the town court legislated in early days and voted. Even in Russia, that 
most abused country, according to some of the modern patent philanthropists who 
go around meddling with everybody's business but their own, and finding fault with 
everybody because they are so vulnerable themselves [Laughter] — even in Russia, 
in a large part of the territory of that empire, the people assemble in public 
naeetings and legislate and vote for their own interests so far as their different 
localities are concerned. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold that the word " manner," as used in this provision 
of the Constitution, applies to one of these three modes or manners of holding an 
election. We hear a good deal now about the Australian system, which, they say, 
is becoming very popular. I hope so. I do not know what it is, but I hope it will 
be adopted so as to save the consciences of the majority of this committee. But 
this Australian system is a "manner" of holding an election, just as the show of 
hands is a manner, or as the vote by ballot is a manner, or as the viva voce vote is a 
manner; and il is in this sense that this article of the Constitution refers to the 
"manner" of holding elections. Congress has the right to determine the manner, 
and nothing beyond this. Possibly a condition of things might arise in a State — I 
deny it, but possibly you could find some four or five gentlemen in black who sit 
here somewhere in the District of Columbia and give out admirable stump speeches 
on the Constitution and call them " decisions" of their court — possibly, I say, you 
could get an opinion from them that the power of Congress can go beyond this. 
But, Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who believe that iconoclasm is a vice. 
[Laughter.] 

As able a jurist as there is anywhere in this country has passed upon the mean- 
ing of this word " manner." In a decision of the supreme court in my own State of 
Pennsylvania, the chief justice of that court, in deciding a question in which this 
word "manner" was involved, made use of this language: 

The manner can not exceed the subject it qualifies or belongs to. 



62 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Now, if the manner can not be anything further than the mere formal expres- 
sion of one or more of these " accustomed modes " of holding elections, then this 
bill as proposed here is utterly unconstitutional. 

Hon. J. B. McCreary, Kentucky: 

On the 6th of February, 1788, Massachusetts, through her State convention, 
presided over by the great Revolutionary patriot, John Hancock, ratified the Con- 
stitution. In the report of ratification, after expressing the opinion that certain 
amendments should be made to "remove the fears and quiet the apprehension of 
many of the good people of this Commonwealth, and more effectually guard against 
an undue administration of the Federal Government," the following alteration of 
and provision to the Constitution is suggested : 

That Congress do not exercise the power vested in them by the fourth section 
of the first article, but in cases when a State shall neglect or refuse to make the 
regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations subversive of the rights 
of the people to a free and equal representation in Congress agreeably to the 
Constitution. 

Judge Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, volume 2, chapter 11, 
discusses the subject ably and exhaustively and holds that the power will not be 
exercised by Congress unless "an extreme necessity or a very urgent exigency 
should arise." 

Mr. Madison, in the Virginia convention, when asked his opinion of this sec- 
tion, said: 

It was found necessary to leave the regulation of these [times, places and man- 
ner] in the first place to the State governments as being best acquainted with the 
situation of the people, subject to the control of the General Government, in order 
to enable it to produce uniformity and prevent its own dissolution. * * * Were 
they exclusively under the control of the State governments, the General Govern- 
ment might easily be dissolved. But if they be regulated properly by the State 
Legislatures, the Congressional control will very probably never be exercised. 

Hon John Jay, who was afterwards Chief-Justice of the United States, said, in 
the New York convention, when this clause was under discussion : 

That every government was imperfect unless it had a power of preserving 
itself. Suppose that by design or accident the States should neglect to appoint the 
Representatives, certainly there should be some constitutional remedy for this evil. 
The obvious meaning of the paragraph was that, if this neglect should take place. 
Congress should have power by law to support the Government, and prevent the 
dissolution of the Union. He believed this was the design of the Federal conven- 
tion. 

Hon. J. W. Covert, New York. 

When this section was under discussion in the State convention of Massachu- 
setts in 1788, Mr. Bishop, one of the members of the convention, said: 

By the fourth section Congress would be enabled to control the electiona of 
Representatives. It has been said that this power was given in order that refrac- 
tory States may be made to do their duty. But if so, why was it not so men- 
tioned ? It has been said that the conduct of Rhode Island in recalling its delegates 
from Congress has demonstrated the necessity of such a power being lodged in 
Congress. * * * If the States shall refuse to do their duty, then let the power 
be given to Congress to oblige them to do it. But if they do their duty Congress 
ought not to liave the power to control elections. In an uncontrolled representa- 



THK FORCE BILL. 63 

tion lies the security of freedom, and by this clause that freedom is sported with. 
In fact, the moment we give Congress this power the liberties of the yeomanry of 
this country are at an end. 

Mr. Strong, speaking to the same question, said: 

If the legislative bodies of the States, who must be supposed to know at what 
time and in what place and manner the elections can best be held, should so appoint 
them, it can not be supposed that Congress, by the power granted by this section, 
will alter them; but if the Legislature of a State should refuse to make such regu- 
lations, the consequence will be that the Representatives will not be chosen, and 
the General Government will be dissolved. In such case, can gentlemen say that a 
power to remedy the evil is not necessary to be lodged somewhere ? And where 
can it be lodged but in Congress ? 

Mr. Jarvis said, speaking in the same connection : 

If it was argued that Congress might abuse their power, and, by varying the 
places of election, distress the people, it can only be observed that such a wanton 
abuse can not be supposed, but if it could go to the annihilation of the right, the 
people would not submit. 

In the New York convention of the same year, in discussing the ratification of 
this section, Mr. Jones said, " he did not think it right that Congress should have 
the power of prescribing or altering the time, place and manner of holding elec- 
tions. He apprehended that the clause might be so construed as to deprive the 
States of an essential right, which, in the true design of the Constitution, was to 
Tae reserved to them." [He here quotes Mr. Jay in the New York convention.] 

The New York convention only ratified the Constitution, in full confidence 
that until amendments might be adopted — 

The Congress will not make or alter any regulation in the State respecting the 
times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives, un- 
less the Legislature of this State shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations 
for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same ; and 
that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the Legislature of the 
State shall make provision in the premises. 

Hon. Henry St. Geo. Tucker, Virginia : 

When shall Congress exercise this control ? For what cause shall it assume 
the power, and the States abdicate their control of elections which they have exer- 
cised without interruption for one hundred years ? These sections and the Consti- 
tution are silent upon this subject ; but the history of the adoption of the Consti- 
tution and the cotemporaneous evidence of those who made it supply the answers. 

Of the original thirteen States thLt framed the Constitution seven were out- 
spoken on the subject, while in some of the others there was likewise a strong 
sentiment against the adoption of the Constitution containing this and other sec- 
tions 

The language of some of them is most striking and instructive. On the 6th 
of February, 1788, Massaschusetts, through her State convention, presided over 
ty the great Revolutionary patriot, John Hancock, ratified the Constitution. In 
the report of ratification, after expressing the opinion that certain amendments 
;sliould be made to "remove the fears and quiet the apprehension of many of the 
good people of this Commonwealth, and more effectually guard against an undue 
•administration of the Federal Government," the following alteration of and pro- 
vision to the Constitution is suggested: 



64 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

That Congress do not exercise the powers vested in them by the fourth sec- 
tion of the first article, but in cases when a State shall neglect or refuse to make- 
the regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations subversive of the 
rights of the people to a free and equal representation in Congress, agreeably ta 
the Constitution. 

Not satisfied with the mere suggestion of such amendment, and with a 
prophetic fear that if such suggestions were not adopted by the first Congress ta 
assemble under the Constitution, some erring son of this ancient Commonwealth 
might some day weaver in his support of those principles in the halls of Congress,, 
the convention added this strong language : 

And the convention do, in the name and in behalf of the people of this Com- 
monwealth, enjoin it upon their Representatives in Congress at all times, until 
the alterations and provisions aforesaid have been considered agreeably to the 
fifth article of the said Constitution, to exert all their influence, and use all reason- 
able and legal methods to obtain a ratification of said alterations and provisions, in. 
such manner as is provided in the said article. 

South Carolina ratified on the 23d of May, 1788, with the following recom- 
mendation : 

And whereas it is essential to the preservation of the rights reserved to the 
several States, and the freedom of the people, under the operations of a General 
Government, that the right of prescribing the manner, time, and places of holdings 
the elections to the Federal Legislature should be forever inseparably annexed to 
the sovereignty of the several States : This convention doth declare that the same 
ought to remain to all posterity a perpetual and fundamental right in the local,, 
exclusive of the interference of the General Government, except in cases where the 
Legislatures of the States shall refuse or neglect to perform and fulfill the same 
according to the tenor of the said Constitution. 

New Hampshire ratified June 21, 1788, and made a recommendation in the 
same language used by the State of Massachusetts. 

Virginia, on the 26th of June, 1788, ratified with a recommendation in the 
following words : 

That Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere in the times, places, and 
manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, or either of them, 
except when the Legislature of any State shall neglect, refuse, or be disabled by 
invasion or rebellion to prescribe the same. 

August 1, 1788, North Carolina ratified, having held out against ratification on 
account of this and other objectionable clauses. The convention recommended an 
amendment in the same language as did the State of Virginia. 

New York ratified July 26, 1788, and the recommendations of its convention 
are in some respects the strongest of any on this subject. Before the formal state- 
ment of ratification, a declaration of rights is set forth in which, among other pro- 
visions, we find — 

That nothing contained in the said Constitution is to be construed to prevent 
the Legislature of any State from passing laws at its discretion, from time to time,, 
to divide such State into convenient districts and to apportion its Representatives- 
to and amongst such districts. 

Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid can not be 
abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the 
said Constitution, and in confidence that tlie amendments which shall have been 
proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration,, 
we, the said delegates, * * * do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the 
said Constitution. 



THE FORCE BILL. 65 

In full confidence^ nemrtlwless^ that until a convention shall be called and con- 
vened for proposing amendments to the Constitution ^ * * that the Congress 
will not make or alter any regulations in this State respecting the times, places, and 
manner of holding elections for Senators or Representatives, unless the Legislature 
of this State shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or 
from any circumstance be incapable of making the same ; and that in those cases 
such power will duly be exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make 
provision in the premises. 

And in accordance with this declaration the convention suggested an amend- 
ment to Congress embodying the above idea. 

Rhode Island did not ratify until June 26, 1790, and the language of her con- 
vention on the subject and the amendments suggested were in almost the identical 
words of those of the State of New York, only stronger. The above extracts have 
been made that it might be seen how strong was the feeling on this subject at the 
time of the ratification of the Constitution, and that the Constitution itself was 
only finally adopted in the faith, and belief, of a majority of the States that Con- 
gress would never exercise this power except when the States had failed to do so, 
or from any cause could not do so. 

Not alone did the States above enumerated speak out with no uncertain sound, 
but in the debates in the Pennsylvania convention to ratify the Constitution, James 
Wilson, a member of the Federal convention that framed the Constitution, and a 
member of the State convention, explained this provision to mean in effect that the 
States were primarily to act, and Congress only in case of their failure to do so ; 
and the convention recommended an amendment in the following words : 

That Congress shall not have power to make or alter regulations concerning 
the time, place and manner of electing Senators and Representatives, except in 
the case of neglect or refusal by the State to make regulations for the purpose, 
and then only for such time as such neglect or refusal shall continue. 

We conclude, therefore, that Congress has the power to " prescribe the time, 
places, and manner of holding elections " for members of Congress, but that such 
power is contingent and conditional only, not original and prima/ry. 

Under what condition or upon what contingency ? 

If we accept the evidence of the States in their State conventions, ratifying 
the Constitution, and that if the men who made the Constitution, the conditions are — 

First. Where the States refuse to provide the necessary machinery for 
elections, and 

Second. Where they are unable to do so for any cause, rebellion. 
* * * * * * ***** 

But observe this clause again : 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Repre- 
sentatives, etc. • 

If Congress has the power to pass this bill, it has the power to amend it and 
make it applicable to the election of Senators. Apply its provisions to the elec- 
tion of Senators, and what would we have ? The Legislatures of the States dom- 
inated and controlled in the election of Senators by Federal officers. In the State 
of Virginia, in the election of Senator, " a committee of three members from each 
house shall compare the votes, and ascertain and report the result." But if this 
bill be constitutional, and applied to the election of Senators, the committee of 



66 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



each house of the Virginia Legislature could not compare the votes without the 
supervision of the Federal supervisors. They could not ascertain and count the 
vote, for under this bill that power is given the supervisors. They could not 
" report the result" to their respective houses, for the supervisors would report the 
result to a Federal canvassing board. 

Members would be challenged in the right to vote, and the right of the people 
of a county to representation denied by a Federal official. Confusion, chaos, and 
collision would inevitably result, and the proud position of free and independent 
States converted into the subserviency of crouching victims to Federal usurpation 
and power. Does not the analogy show that the makers of the Constitution could 
never, never have intended any such power to be given to Congress over the States, 
and their elections for Senators and Representatives. It will not do to say such 
power in the election of Senators will never be invoked. The political exigency 
that could disperse the Legislature of a State at the point of the bayonet would not 
be long in finding a pretext for the application of the club and the billet for the 
enforcement of its wicked designs. 

Many others took the view that the bill was without constitutional warrant. 

Passage of the Bill. 

The question was taken on the passage of the bill, and it 
was decided in the affirmative — yeas 155, nays 149, not voting 
24; as follows: 

YEAS-155. 



Adams, 


DalzeU, 


Laidlaw, 


Allen, Mich. 


Darlington, 


Lansing, 


Anderson, Kans. 


De Lano, 


Laws, 


Arnold, 


Dingley, 


Lind, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Dolliver, 


Lodge, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


Dorsey, 


Mason, 


Banks, 


Dunnell, 


McComas, 


Bartine, 


Evans, 


McCord, 


Bayne, * 


Farquhar, 


McCormick, 


Beckwith, 


Featherston, 


McBuffle, 


Belden, 


Finley, 


McKanna, 


Belknap, 


Flick, 


McKinley, 


Bergen, 


Flood, 


Miles, 


Bingham, 


Funston, 


Milliken, 


Bliss, 


Gear, 


Mofflt, 


Boothman, 


Gest, 


Moore, N. H. 


Boutelle, 


Giflord, 


Morey, 
MorriU, 


Bowden, 


GreenJialge, 


Brewer, 


Grosvenor, 


Morrow, 


Brosius, 


Grout, 


Morse, 


Brower, 


Hall, 


Mudd, 
Niedrhighaus, 


Buchanan, N. J. 


Hansbrough, 


Burrows, 


Harmer, 


Nute, 


Burton, 


Haugen, 
Henderson, HI. 


O'Donnell, 


Butterworth, 


O'NelU, Pa. 


Caldwell, 


Henderson, Iowa. 


Osborne, 


Candler, Mass. 


Hermann, 


Payne, 


Cannon, 


HiU, 


Payson, 


Carter, 


Hitt, 


Perkins, 


Caswell, 


Hopkins, 


Peters, 


Cheadle, 


Houk, 


Post, 


Cheatham, 


Kelley, 


Pugsley, 


Comstock, 


Kennedy, 


Quackenbush, 
Raines, 


Conger, 


Kerr, Iowa. 


Connell, 


Ketcham, 


Randall, 


Cooper, Ohio. 
Craig, 


Kinsey, 


Ray, 


Knapp, 


Reed, Iowa, 


Culbertson, Pa. 


Lacey, 


ir/e?""' 


Cutcheon, 


La FoUette, 



Rockwell, 

Rowell, 

RusseU, 

Sanford, 

Sawyer, 

Scranton, 

Scull, 

Smith, III. 

Smith, W. Va. 

Snider, 

Spooner, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart, Vt. 

Stockbridge, 

Struble, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, 111. 

Tayloi', Tenn. 

Taylor, J. D. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, 

Townsend, Colo. 

Townsend, Pa. 

Turner, Kans. 

Vandever, 

Van Schaick, 

Waddill, 

Wade, 

Walker, Mass. 

Wallace, Mass. 

Wallace, N. Y. 

Watson, 

Wickham, 

Williams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 

Yardley. 



THE FORCE BILL. 



67 







NAYS— 149. 


Abbott, 


Cowles, 


Lawler, 


Alderson, 


Crain, 


Lee, 


Allen, Miss. 


Crisp, 


*Lehlbach, 


Anderson, Miss. 


Culberson, Tex. 


Lester, Ga. 


Andrew, 


Cummings, 


Lester, Va. 


Bankhead, 


Dargan, 


Lewis, 


Barnes, 


Davidson, 


Magner, 
Maish, 


Barwig, 


Dibble, 


Blanchard, 


Dickerson, 


Mansur, 


Bland, 


Dockery, 


Martin, Ind. 


Blount, 


Dunphy, 


Martin, Tex. 


Boatner, 


Edmunds, 


McAdoo, 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Elliott, 


McCarthy, 


Breckinridge, Ky. 


Ellis, 


McClammy, 


Brickner, 


Enloe, 


McClellan, 


Brooksliire, 
Brown, J. B. 


Fitbian, 


McCreary, 


Mower, 


McMillin, 


Brnnner, 


Forman, 


McRae, 


Buchanan, Va. 


Forney, 


Mills, 


Buckalew, 


Fowler, 


Montgomery, 


Bullock, 


Geissenbainer, 


Moore, Tex. 


Bunn, 


Gibson, 


Morgan, 


Bynum, 


Goodnight, 


Mutchler, 


Campbell, 
Candler, Ga. 


Grimes, 


Norton, 


Hare, 


Gates, 


Carlton, 


Hatch, 


O'Ferrall, 


Caruth, 


Hayes, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Catchings, 


Haynes, 


Outhwaite, 


Chipman, 


Heaj'd, 


Owens, Ohio. 


Clancy, 


Hemphill, 
Henderson, N. C. 


Parrett, 


Clarke, Ala. 


Paynter, 


Clements, 


Herbert, 


Peel, 


Clunie, 


Holman, 


Penington, 


Cobb, 


Hooker, 


Perry, 


♦Coleman, 


Kerr, 


Pierce, 


Cooper, Ind. 


KUgore, 


Price, 


Cothran, 


Lane, 


Quinn, 


Covert, 


Lanham, 


Reilly, 




NOT 


VOTING— 24. 


Baker, 


De Haven, 


Phelan, 


Biggs, 


Ewart, 


Pickler, 


Browne, T. M. 


Fitch, 


Seney, 


Browne, Va. 
Clark, Wis. 


Frank, 


Sherman, 


O'NeiU, Mass. 


Simonds, 


Cogswell, 


Owen, Ind. 


Smyser, 



Richardson, 

Robertson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Rusk, 

Sayers, 

Shively, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Stump, 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Tm-ner, Ga. 

Turner, N. Y. 

Vaux, 

Venable, 

Walker, Mo. 

Washington, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whiting, 

Whitthorne, 

Wike, 

Wilkinson, 

Wilcox, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, Mo. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Yoder. 



Spinola, 
Stewart, Ga. 
Stivers, 
Taylor, E. B. 
Wheeler, Mich. 
Wiley. 



♦Messrs. Coleman and Lehlbach voted with the Democrats against the bill. 

So the bill was passed. 

The Speakee. On this question the yeas are 155, the nays 149, and the bill 
is passed, [Loud applause on the Republican side.] 



€ost of Administration. 

The cost of administering this bill should it become a law, 
is a mere matter of conjecture; for nobody knows how many 
marshals and other officers will be appointed, how much offices 
and stationery will cost, how much court and other expenses 
will be. 

Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, gave the following estimate, but 
as it is based on the supposition that there are only 55,000 voting 
places in the Union, when as a matter of fact there are in round 
numbers 65,000, the estimate is probably much below the real 
cost. Should the law be applied in every district, the cost will 
hardly be less than $15,000,000 for a single election. 



68 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Mr. Tucker's estimate is: 

Cost of canvassing board : 

Three canvassers, per diem and expenses $20 each = $60 

Clerk, per diem and expenses == 20 

80 

Days allowed (section 15), 15 ; estimated average used, 5 ; 5 x $8 = 400 

Number of States in Union, 42 ; 42 x $100. = 16,800 

Seals, Stationery, etc., (estimated) 1,000 

17,800 
Cost of chief supervisors, by Congressional districts : 

Printing, recording, certifying, stationery, advertising, telegrams, 
etc., for each Congressional district, $5,000; number of Con- 
gressional districts, 330 ; 330 x $5,000 = 1,650,000 

Cost of supervisors (section 19) : 

Average number to a precinct, 3 ; estimated average pay of each, 
$6 ; estimated average days of service, 6 ; number of precincts 
in United States, 55,000 ; total cost of supervisors 5,940,000 

Cost of deputy marshals (section 20) : 

Number of precincts, 55,000 ; estimated average for each precinct, 
3 ; estimated average days of service, 5 ; services per diem, $5 ; 
total cost of deputy marshals 4,125,000 

Total $11,732,800 

The bill makes an indefinite and permanent appropriation to 
defray the expenses, and the cost can be told only after the 
claims are allowed. It should be distinctly understood that 
the bill simply turns over the United States treasury with all 
the money in it, and that may hereafter go into it from any 
source whatever, to the Republican party, its marshals, super- 
visors and employees, to be used as a campaign fund. 

An address to the public— It is issued over tlie signatures of 
the ]Vorthern Democrats— The liOdge bill analyzed and 
their objections formulated for the information of the 
people. 

The Northern Democratic members of the House of Repre- 
sentatives have prepared the following formal protest against 
the national election bill, now under discussion in the House : 

The undersigned, representing in the Congress of the United States constitu- 
encies in States north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers, feel it their duty to their 
fellow-citizens to briefly call their attention to the extraordinary, dangerous, and 
revolutionary measure now proposed by the leaders of the party in power for pas- 
sage in the House of Representatives. 

Under a doubtful construction of the Constitution, this bill proposes to sub- 
stantially take from the States and local authorities control of all elections at 



th:^ force bill. , 69 

which members of Congress are balloted for, and hand the same over to United 
States judges appointed to office for life ; and chief supervisors of elections. 

If the power claimed resides in the Constitution, which we deny, the Republic 
has gone through the difficulties of the formative period, made heroic struggle 
against dissolution, triumphed and successfully readjusted itself to changed condi- 
tions without the exercise of such power by the Federal Government for one hun- 
dred years and over. Mr. Jefferson and the fathers of the Republic would have 
considered such a proposition, as this as dangerous as an open attempt at centrali- 
zation. 

The bill is a purely partisan measure, intended primarily to control the elec- 
tions for Congress and Presidential electors in all the States, and to intimidate, 
hound, obstruct and harrass, by political prosecutions in unfriendly hands, the 
adverse majorities in the cities of the North. To this end it gives to the control of 
the chief supervisor of elections a body of Federal police spies, who are authorized 
to make domiciliary visits, superintend the naturalization of our foreign-born citi- 
zens, place the citizen under strict scrutiny of these trusty and unprincipled Fed- 
eral detectives for days both preceding and following an election, and in every way 
subject him to the power and control of paid party mercenaries of the Government in 
a way at utter variance with Republican institutions and the great principle of 
American freedom — home rule. 

To carry on this scheme of imperial government, millions of dollars will be 
taxed from our people, and the judiciary of the United States prostituted to the 
basest partisanship in the management of elections. And these invasions of the 
liberties of our people will be left for safety to partisan juries in the Federal courts, 
composed entirely of the men of the party in power. A partisan returning board 
is proposed for each State, the object and purpose of which, as well as the general 
constitutional objections to the bill, are well stated by the minority of the Com- 
mittee on the Election of President, Vice-President and Representatives in Con- 
gress, and which we herewith quote : 

The final returns of elections, made by the district boards of canvassers to the 
clerk of the House of Representatives, are to constitute prima facie evidence of 
election results, and the persons so returned by the canvassers as elected are to 
have their names placed upon the roll as members of the House. The returns made 
by governors of States are to be wholly disregarded, although they may contra- 
dict the returns so made, and show that different persons were elected. The Clerk 
of the House must accept the canvassers' returns and reject the others, or be sub- 
jected to severe punishment by imprisonment and fine. 

But as the boards of canvassers act upon the returns and statements furnished 
to them by the district supervisors, and do not receive or consider the official returns 
made by the State officers, it results that the district supervisors, with the aid of 
their subordinate precinct supervisors, will virtually dictate the returns upon which 
members will be seated in the House. By the fourth section of Article 1 of the 
Constitution it is provided : 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Repre- 
sentatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, but the Con- 
gress may at any time make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of 
choosing Senators. 

By this provision very clearly a primary and general power is conferred on 
the State Legislature to regulate in all respects the times, places, and manner of 
holding Congressional elections, and also a secondary and conditional power ; in 



70 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

other words, a permissive and contingent power upon Congress to make regula- 
tions for those purposes and to change them, and it is a necessary implication from 
the language of the text that the permissive and contingent power of Congress is 
to be exercised, if exercised at all, according to that provision of the context found 
in clause 18, section 8, Article 1, of the Constitution, which provides that Congress 
shall have the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
carrying into execution the foregoing powers,'* etc. 

Therefore, if the States shall have performed their duty and exercised the gen- 
eral power of regulating the question, the contingency upon which Congressional 
action depends will not have occurred. 

In case a State shall have neglected to enact laws for the election of Congress- 
men by its own people, or shall have enacted laws in hostility to the General Gov- 
ernment, either to deprive its people of representation in Congress or to prevent 
that right from being exercised in a reasonable manner and at proper times, then 
Congress is permitted to intervene and to establish regulations which will secure 
representation to the people of such State. 

"What was given to Congress as the law-making power of the Government in 
this case was a defensive power against State hostility or negligence by which pop- 
ular representation would fail, and the necessary power of the Federal Govern- 
ment would be impaired or paralyzed for want of representation in the House. 

This view of the Constitution is not mere matter of opinion begotten by the 
necessities of debate, nor a novel view introduced to support a foregone conclu- 
sion dictated by party interest or passion. It is a view supported by the most 
decisive proofs drawn from the history of our country at the time of the making 
of the Constitution and the organization of the Government of the United States. 

In most of the States opposition was made to the ratification of the Constitu- 
tion because it was alleged that this particular provision was liable to jjerversion 
and dangerous construction, extending national power to interference with State 
elections. In other words, those opponents apprehended the very abuse of con- 
struction which is embodied and illustrated by this bill, but the friends of the 
Constitution met them in debate and gave to this provision the construction above 
stated, vindicating this construction by substantial and satisfactory reasoning 
which convinced our fathers and ought to convince us. 

Without considering the questions upon the construction of this provision of 
the Constitution which have been heretofore debated in Congress and considered 
by commentators upon constitutional law, relating to the manner and extent to 
which Congress may act in case of State default or hostile action, we are prepared 
to say that this bill is plainly unconstitutional, because the States have not failed 
to pass laws for the representation of their people in Congress nor made laws 
hostile to such representation and to the Government of the United States in con- 
nection therewith. On the contrary, their legislation upon this subject by the 
States has been apparently enacted in good faith to this Government and to their 
people. 

In view of the great danger to the rights and liberties of the people and to 
the principle of local self-government involved in this bill, we respectfully appeal 
to American freemen, without regard to party, to enter timely protest by way of 
public meeting or otherwise against this consolidation of Government, the destruc- 
tion of popular rights, and the very foundation of American liberty, for we indulge 
in no mere rhetorical flourish when we solemnly affirm on our loyalty as citizens, and 



THE FORCE BILL. 71 

on our honor as Representatives, that this vicious and unpatriotic measure is a 
most serious menace to the very life of the Republic. 

The issue is, " Shall a political party elect itself and keep in power by paid 
agents who are to control the political elections in all the States ?" 

"William S. Holman, C. R. Buckalew, William M. Springer, William 
McAdoo, Amos J. Cummings, W. P. Willcox, James Kerr, Sam- 
uel Fowler, William Barrett, J. Chipman, Benjamin Shiveley, C. 
A. McClellan, J. B. Brown, J. W. Covert, A. K Martin, C. H. 
Mansur, D. B. Brunner, J. R. Williams, William Mutchler, Rich- 
ard Vaux, Levi Maish, Jos. H. O'Neill of Massachusettts, John F. 
Andrew, Charles H. Turner of New York, William Stahlnecker, 
John Tarsney, J. A. Geissenhainer, R. P. Flower, William D. 
Bynum, Elijah V. Brookshire, Charles Tracey, F. B. Spinola, 
Thomas F. Magner, John H. McCarthy, John M. Clancy, Felix 
Campbell. 

!N*ew York Commercial Advertiser, June 18, 1890. How pu- 
rity in elections is to be sought : 

On Saturday last a most interesting political episode occurred in Washington. 
According to a dispatch in an esteemed Republican contemporary of this city, 
John I. Davenport — that life-long advocate of purity in politics — " was with the 
House caucus committee, giving the members the benefit of his experience in the 
execution of the election laws to aid them in the preparation of the national elec- 
tion bill." 

It would be idle to undertake to instruct anybody in New York as to what Mr. 
Davenport's "experience" is. It is suflEicient to say that wherever or whenever a 
questionable thing has been projected in regard to the elections of this city, there 
the " experience " of Mr. Davenport has been found valuable. In every conspiracy 
against the purity of the ballot, he has been recognized everywhere as one of the 
brightest and shrewdest of the leaders. In other words, his reputation is so bad 
and questionable that it is much to be doubted whether any man in either party, 
who had any regard whatever for his own reputation for honesty or the least 
familiarity with Davenport's ideas or methods, would be found associating with 
him in political combinations. 

It has heretofore been assumed, and that without question, that Davenport 
would not think of doing an honest or creditable thing in politics if the opposite 
was a possibility. The very idea of calling John I. Davenport in to consult about 
the enactment of laws looking to purity in elections is very much akin to a sug- 
gestion that might have been made in times past to call in Dick Tui-pin or Jonathan 
Wild to confer about the condition of the roads of which they were to rob the rich 
but unsuspecting traveler. It is also very much like asking advice from Ferdinand 
Ward, or men of his kind, in regard to strengthening the laws for the punishment 
of embezzlement. Davenport could give just about as good advice concerning the 
purity in elections as could the late Mr. Tweed, and not quite so valuable as that 
which could be procured from " Blocks-of-five " Dudley or from his fellow worker, 
Mr. Quay. 

Nothing could more emphatically indicate the condition of sentiment in the 
Republican party than such an announcement at this. Nothing could show more 
pertinently the fallacy of any and all of the pretensions put forward that the purity 
of the ballot is the first consideration with the Republicans in the Fifty-first 



72 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Congress. While it shows the condition of shamelessness which lias been reached, 
it also shows their desperation that such a man should be chosen as the adviser of 
a caucus committee. 

Tlie "Suppresed" Vote. 

The reason urged for the enactment of this bill was that the 
Republican party is deprived of its proper power by the suppres- 
sion of its vote ; and in support of this view of the situation the 
advocates of force exhibited elaborate tables showing that in 
many districts there are more negroes than whites ; (2) that in 
some districts the vote is much below the whole number of those 
entitled to vote ; (3) that sometimes the vote was very large 
and sometimes small ; (4) that in some districts a smaller num- 
ber of votes will return a Democrat than will in others return a 
Republican. 

This example of the stuff that does duty for argument is 
taken from the speech of Senator Hoar against the Q^ay reso- 
lution to lay the Force bill away until next session. 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF GEORGIA KNOWN AS THE BLACK DISTRICTS. 

Second district : majority of colored voters over white voters in this district, 

as shown by the last census -3,763 

Official majority for Turner, Democrat 10,991 

Third district : majority of colored voters over white voters in this district, 

as shown by the last census 2,431, 

Official majority for Crisp, Democrat 6,124 

Fourth district : majority of colored voters over white voters in this district, 

as shown by the last census ^ 2,947 

Official majority for Grimes, Democrat 5,673 

Sixth district : majority of colored voters over white voters in this district, 

as shown by the last census 8,229 

Official majority for Blount, Democrat , 8,809 

Eighth district: majority of colored voters over white voters in this district, 

as shown by the last census 4,180 

Official majority for Carlton, Democrat 5,182 

Tenth district: majority of colored voters over white voters in this district, 

as shown by the last census 6,145 

Official majority for Barnes, Democrat 5,780 

Here is the Senator's conclusion from his own table : 

Mr. President, this is not a question of the domination of a negro majority 
over you ; it is the question of the domination of a white man's minority over us 
that we are called upon by a just regard to our own rights and for constitutional 
liberty to consider. 

The investigations and tables quit at this point. Had they 
extended further and taken in Republican districts and States, 
they would, according to the theory of the advocates of this 
measure, have disclosed the most gigantic system of suppres- 
sion, intimidation and fraud ever known in any country gov- 
erned by laws enacted by the people. 



THE FORCE BILL. 73 

Without referring to the fact that Congressmen are appor- 
tioned on population and not votes, look a little into Republican 
disfranchisement jobs at the North. 

In Pennsylvania the Republicans elect a Congressman for 
every 25,000 Republican votes, and the Democrats one for every 
64,000 Democratic votes. In representative power one Republi- 
can ballot stands for two and one-half Democratic votes. 

In 14 States, comprising all the Northern States but six, 
there were cast in 1888 3,386,399 Republican votes, and they 
elected 126 Republican Congressmen, while with 3,074,165 Demo- 
cratic votes in these same States, the Democrats elected but 47 
Congressmen. The total vote of the 14 States was 6,460,564. 
Here is the case in a nutshell: 

Fourteen Northern States elect 173 Congressmen. 

Votes. 

47 Republican Congressmen represent 3,074,165 

47 Democratic Congressmen represent 3,074,165 

79 Republican Congressmen represent 313,234 

173 6,460,564 

79 Northern Republican Congressmen represent 3,952 votes each. 
47 Northern Democratic Congressmen represent 65,408 votes each. 

South Carolina, with an enormous negro population, in a 
recent election returned seven Democratic members with 40,000 
votes, or an average of 5,500 to each, and this was insisted upon 
as conclusive evidence that the vote was suppressed ! 

The following extract is from the speech of Hon. J. J. 
Hemphill, of South Carolina: 

Mr. Speaker. If the parties had a fair representation upon this floor in exact 
accord with the sentiment of the voters, there would be now in this House 163 
Democrats, 154 Republicans, 5 Prohibitionists and 2 Labor candidates. That 
would be the result if there was a fair and honest expression here of the senti- 
ments of the people of this country. 

In California 117,000 Democratic votes are required to elect two Representa- 
tives, while 124,000 Republican votes elect four Representatives. The average 
number of votes to the Representative are ; Democratic 58,000, Republican 31,000. 
In other words, it takes 27,000 more votes in California to put a Democratic Repre- 
sentative here than it takes to send a Republican Representative. 

In Illinois 348,000 Democratic votes elect seven Representatives, while 370,000 
Republican votes elected thirteen Representatives. The average number of Demo- 
cratic votes to one Representative is 49,000 ; the average number of votes to each 
Republican Representative is 28,000. That is, it takes 21,000 more Democratic 
votes in Illinois to elect a Democrat here than it does to elect a Republican. I see 
that creates a smile on the other side. Gentlemen over there think that is all right. 
That is what they call " a free ballot and a fair count " up North. 

Take Iowa, 179,000 Democratic votes elect one Representative, while 211,000 
elect ten Republican Representatives. The average number of votes to the Repre- 
sentative on the Democratic side is 179,000, while the average number of votes to 
each Republican Representative is 21,000. In other words, it takes 158,000 more 
10 



74 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Democratic votes in Iowa to send one Democratic Representative here than it takes 
to send one Republican Representative. Yet the gentleman from Massachusetts 
thought it so small a matter that the Democrats of all these States should be 
swindled out of their rights on this floor that he deemed it absolutely unworthy of 
notice. 

Mr. Speaker, I have here a great many other ligures. Take the State, so ably 
represented by the gentleman who has been elected dictator of this House, to pass 
all our laws for us during the Fifty-first Congress without any effort on our part. 
See how the case stands there. In Maine 73,734 Republican votes have chosen four 
Represeiftatives, while 54,516 Democratic votes have chosen no Representative at 
all. In other words, there are four Representatives here from Maine representing 
73,734 people ; and there is not one man here from Maine representing 54,516 people. 

In Massachusetts 104,385 Democratic voters elect two Representatives, while 
183,892 Republicans elect ten. Average number of votes to ^the Representative : 
Democrat, 52,191 ; Republican, 18,389 ; difference, 33,803. 

In Michigan 213,469 Democratic voters elect two Representatives, while 236,^ 
387 Republicans elect nine. Average number of votes to the Representative: 
Democrat, 106,734; Republican, 26,625 ; difference, 80,469. 

In Minnesota 142,492 Republican voters have five Representatives, while 120,- 
793 voters not of that party have no political representation. 

In Nebraska 108,425 Republican voters have three Representatives, while 94,- 
228 voters not of that party have no political representation. 

In the great State of New York it takes to elect a Representative : Democrats, 
42,389 ; Republicans, 34,105 ; difference, 8,284. 

In Ohio it is as follows; Democrats, 79,251; Republicans, 26,003; difference^ 
53,248. 

In Pennsylvania it is as follows : Democrats, 63,805 ; Republicans, 25,052 ; 
difference, 38,853. 

In a Congressional election a Republican has three times the political weight 
of a Democrat in Ohio and Massachusetts, fours time as much in Michigan, and 
more than eight times as much in Iowa, while in nineteen States, ten Republican 
and nine Democratic, the minorities have no influence or power in a Corlgressional 
election and have no political representation in the House of Representatives. 

Gentlemen, if a minister of the gospel goes into the pulpit one day in each 
week and preaches the gospel in its purity and beauty, and serves the devil with 
might and main the other six da5^s of the week, the people of the community will 
most likely not have much confidence in him ; and you could not blame them very 
much. That is just the way we look at these sham efforts at reform coming from 
the other side of the House, under the pretense of a "free ballot and a fair 
count," when it is known by everybody that these same reformers have so fixed 
the apportionment in their States that representation amounts to absolutely nothing 
so far as the Democrats are concerned. 

Now for the total. In fourteen different States, as the New York World 
shows by figures, there are 3,386,000 Republicans, who elect 126 Representatives, 
the average being not quite 27,000 to each Representative, while 3,074,000 Demo- 
crats elect in the same number of States only 45 Representatives, or an average of 
65,000 Democratic votes to elect a Representative. 

Gentlemen, if voting means anything; if it means the expression through 
Representatives of the policy which the people desire to see adopted, I say that 
you in the majority are here wrongfully ; you have no right to be here, because the 
people have not, by their full and fair expression, sent you here. 



THE FORCE BILL. 75 

Mr. Springer. They are usuipers. 

Mr. Hemphill. Yes, you are usurpers. 

Mr. Farquhar. Will the gentleman from South Carolina permit me one 
observation. 

Mr. Hemphill. I would prefer not to be interrupted, because I am trenching 
on the time of other gentlemen. 

Mr. Farquhar. I wish only to call the gentleman's attention to this point. 
The gentleman must have noticed that in the exhibit to which he has referred in 
relation to fourteen States, several of the Northern States are omitted. I do not 
know that it would make any particular difference in the result ; but the gentleman, 

1 know, is too fair not to notice that omission. 

Mr. Hemphill. I only specify some Northern States. There may be a little 
inaccuracy in the addition and subtraction ; but anything of that kind would not 
affect this general result, that 65,000 Democratic votes are required to elect one 
Hepresentative, and 27,000 Republican votes to elect a Representative. I am sure 
there is no such mistake as would affect that general result. 

Mr. Farquhar. Oh, I grant the showing of the argument. 

Mr. Hemphill. Take for instance, the State of New York, which has two 
Representatives at the other end of the Capitol voting for protection and for mo- 
nopolies, as we think. How do they get there ? Why, they get there because the 
Legislature of New York refused to have a census of the voters of the State so 
that there should be a reapportionment. Since 1885 the Legislature, in the teeth of 
the Constitution, has refused to the people the plain right to have themselves enu- 
merated and their Representatives apportioned according to the enumeration. And 
so Mr. Evarts and Mr. Hiscock are to-day in the Senate of the United States mis- 
representing the sentiments of the State of New York. 

The same thing is true with regard to Connecticut. 

Here is Connecticut in detail, from the speech of Hon. J. H. 
0*Neall, of Indiana: 

But we are not done with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Russell.] In 
his judgment all States represented in the Congress of the United States by Demo- 
crats are all wrong ; and all represented by Republicans are all right, and that 
chiefest among the elect is Connecticut. In 1888 Cleveland carried Connecticut 
over Harrison. The Democrat candidate for governor had more votes than his 
Republican competitor, but not over that competitor and the Prohibition candidate 
too. The Legislature elected at the same election was Republican. By how much 
majority? In the Senate 17 Republicans to 7 Democrats were elected. In the 
House 152 Republicans to 96 Democrats. Majority on joint ballot 66. The Legis- 
lature put the Republican in for governor. 

To show something of the workings of the town system (in Indiana we call 
them townships) of which the gentleman boasts so highly, we have prepared a 
table, showing the number of voters — Republican, Democratic, Prohibition, and all 
others all told — in 31 towns each of which elected 2 representatives to the lower 
TDranch of the State Legislature, in all 62, all Republicans. And 49 towns each of 
which elected one representative — 49 more — to that Legislature, all Republicans. 
In the aggregate 111 legislators. And showing the number of voters — Republican, 
Democratic, Prohibition, and all others, all told — in 4 towns each of which elected 

2 representatives to the same Legislature, in all 8, all Democrats. 

Eighty Republican towns, with 31,624 voters all told, electing 111 Republicans, 



76 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



while four Democratic towns, with 44,431 voters, 13,807 more votes than in the 80 
'Republican towns, and yet elect only 8 Democrats. It takes 5,554 voters in these 
Democratic towns to elect 1 member to the Legislature, while in these Republican 
towns that many votes elect between 10 and 20 members. 

I take it the statistics I use are reliable. I get them from the annual 
Connecticut State Register and Manual for 1890, as found on pages 324 to 332 
inclusive. 

Following is the table showing the number of votes of all parties : 

EEPUBLICAN TOWNS. 



Name of County and Town. 



HARTFORD. 

East Hartford •. . . 

Glastonbury 

Suffleld 

Windsor , , 

East Windsor 

Wethersfleld 

Granby 

Hartland 

Berlin 

Canton 

Plainville 

West Hartford 

Marlborough 

Thirteen towns 

NEW HAVEN. 

Guilford 

Orange 

Branford 

Seymour 

North Haven 

'Madison 

Southbury 

East Haven 

North Branford 

Woodbridge 

Middlebury 

Prospect 

Wolcott 

Thirteen towns 

FAIRFIELD. 

Fairfield . 

Ridgefleld 

Redding 

Huntington 

Bethel 

New Canaan 

Wilton 

Brookfleld 

Easton 

Weston 

Sherman 

New Fairfield 

Twelve towns 

NEW LONDON. 

Colchester 

Lebanon 

North Stonington 

Griswold 

Old Lyme 

Sprague 

volunktown 

Franklin 

Eight towns 



Vot'rs. 



929 
924 
763 
699 
647 
424 
359 
169 
587 
570 
497 
407 



4,924 



885 
863 
711 
395 
377 
299 
331 
221 
199 
129 
117 
108 

5,222 



845 
503 
331 
807 
755 
613 
413 
248 
241 
207 
190 
168 

5,331 



5a5 

399 
382 
549 
268 
310 
310 
147 



3,750 



the: forck bill. 

REPUBLICAN TOWNS— (Coniinued.) 



77 



iViime of County and Town. 


Vot'rs, 


Repre- 
sent- 
atives. 


Putnam . . . . • • • • > • • > • 


WINDHAM. 


601 
517 
272 
351 
219 
177 
147 
134 


2 
3 


Plainfleld 


Thompson 


2 


Woodstock 


3 


Pomf ret . . 


3 


Brooklyn 




Sterling 




Eastf ord 




Ctiaplin 




Scotland 










Ten towns 


4,153 


15 


Woodburv . > • i • • • > > • • > 


LITCHFIELD. 


460 
328 
281 
241 

748 

3a3 

254 
164 
132 


2 
2 


Norfolk 


Barkliamsted 


3 




3 


Thompson 


1 


Kent 


1 


Roxbury 


1 


Bethlehem 


1 


Warren 


1 








Nine towns 


2,941 


13 


Sayhrook 


MIDDDLESEX. 


339 
224 
407 
367 
313 
305 
238 
216 


2 

3 


Cromwell 


1 


Clinton 


1 


Chester 


1 


Old Saybrook 


1 


Westbrook 


1 


Middlefield 


1 








Eight towns.... 


2,409 


10 


TVfflTisiflAlfi 1 . 1 i • 1 > • . . • . 


TOLLAND. 


431 
315 
282 
270 
214 
125 
117 


3 


Somers 


3 


Tolland 


2 




3 


Wellington 


3 


Bolton 


1 




1 










1,754 


12 









RECAPITULATION. 



Hartford County, thirteen towns. . 
New Haven County, thirteen towns 

Fairfield County, twelve towns 

New London County, eight towns . . 

Windham County, ten towns 

Litchfield County, nine towns 

Middlesex County, eight towns 

Tolland County, seven towns 

Total, eighty towns 



31,624 



7,074 


21 


5,222 


14 


5,321 


15 


2,750 


11 


4,153 


15 


2,941 


13 


2,409 


10 


1,754 


12 



DEMOCRATIC TOWNS. 



New Haven 

Hartford 

Bridgeport 

Waterbury 

Four towns 



17,894 

11,419 

9,187 

5,931 



78 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

When a Democrat candidate for governor or for any other State office, with 
•a plurality over all his competitors only, is compelled to go before the joint ballot 
of a Connecticut Legislature, the lovrer house of which is elected by a rotten- 
borough system, such as shown above, the gentleman from that State says: " The 
Legislature, the representative body of local government, elects." 

Where can the gentleman go in this country to find such a mockery of repre- 
sentative government ? Yet, if it suits him and his people, I do not see that we 
have a right to complain, even though it does result in keeping two Republican 
Senators in the other end of the Capitol, with power to assist in forging chains 
upon the balance of us. For one, I say, go it ; the people of Connecticut are more 
interested in the system than I am. 

The honorable member tells us that this represents the equality of the towns, 
but he tells us that the senate is the "popular branch" of their Legislature ; that 
the " senate is based on population ; " that " the division of the State into twenty- 
four senatorial districts is as equitable as is possible according to population." 

In this assertion how is he borne out by the facts ? Though the Democrats 
carried the State for Cleveland in 1888, as above stated, the Republicans 
elected seventeen and the Democrats only seven senators. How "equitable as 
possible " the State is divided for senatorial districts may be seen by studying the 
votes polled — Democratic, Republican, Prohibitionist, and all others, all told — at 
the election of 1888. In that " equitable " division not only the knowledge of 
permutation and power of combination is shown in a marked degree, but Demo- 
cratic districts are made much more populous than Republican districts — on an 
average almost twice as populous. The total vote — Republican, Democratic, 
Prohibition, and all other — polled in the several senatorial district- of the State at 
the election of 1888, is as follows : 

REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS. 

Vote polled. 

Second 6,014 

Third 6,011 

Fourth 7,443 

Seventh 8,009 

Tenth 5,358 

Eleventh 4,677 

Twelfth 6,868 

Thirteenth 6,973 

Fifteenth 7,789 

Sixteenth 3,733 

Seventeenth 3,889 

Eighteenth 4,331 

Twentieth 3,818 

Twenty-first 4,106 

Twenty-second 4,104 

Twenty-third 2,784 

Twenty.fourth 3,585 

The other seven districts, the first, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, fourteenth and 
nineteenth were Democratic, and the total vote in them was as follows : 

Vote polled. 

First district 11,160 

Fifth district 8,138 

8'xth district 7,929 

Eighth district 17,64') 

I i inth district 5,845 

Fourteenth district 9,094 

Nineteenth district 4,132 



THE FORCE BII.I<. 



79 



It will be seen that the eighth district, which is largely Democratic, polled more 
votes than all the five Republican districts, numbered from twenty to twenty-four, 
inclusive. 

It will not do to say that such division is as "equitable" as it is possible to 
make it. To be convinced that it is as inequitable as it is possible to make it, one 
only need take the town map of the State of Connecticut, found in the Connecticut 
State Register and Manual for 1890, page 425, and give it a little study as to the 
population and politics of the several towns. He will readily see that a disciple of 
Elbridge Gerry had a large hand in the districting. 

These tables are from the speech of Hon. R. H. Clark, 
Alabama : 

The gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Ohio [Mr. Brosius and Mr. Kennedy] 
have selected the States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi for their 
tables. Taking their figures for 1888, correcting the error as to Alabama, and 
Table VII of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Lodge], we have the fol- 
lowing results : 



States. 



Males of voting 
age, 1880. 



White. Colored. 



Vote tor Repre- 
sentatives, 1888. 



Demo- Republi- 
cratic. can. 



Alabama 

Georgia 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 

South Carolina 



141,461 
177,967 
108,810 
108,254 
86,900 



118,423 
143,471 
107,977 
130,278 
118,889 



117,583 
96,046 
86,432 
86,814 
65,915 



35,476 

26,827 
25,600 
10,031 



And 



States. 



Males of 
voting age, 

1880. 



Vote for 
Representa- 
tives, 1888. 



Vote 
cast, to 
males of 

voting 
age. 



Massachusetts ...... .i ...... i.. 1 1 ... . 

Vermont 

Rhode Island 

Nevada 

Alabama 

Eleven Southern (seceding States). 



502,648 
95,621 
76,898 
31,255 

259,884 
2,827,043 



341,028 
68,251 
35,369 
12,603 

187,522 
,053,832 



Per cent. 



.71 
.46 
-40 
.72 

^73 



■Nearly. 



Now, if violence is the logical conclusion from the fact that 28 per cent, of the 
vote of Alabama remained away from the polls, how will you explain the sup- 
pression of 29 per cent, in Vermont, of 33 per cent, in Massachusetts, of 54 per 
cent, in Rhode Island, and of 60 per cent, in Nevada; States that send here fifteen 
Republicans out of seventeen Representatives. 



80 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Some Results of " Suppression." 

Extracted from Baltimore Sun. 

Washington, June 10. — Some brief mention has heretofore been made of tne 
remarkable disproportionate influence and power in national affairs exercised by 
the Republican voters of New England. It is an interesting subject and will well 
repay entering upon details. The bulk of the political literature which almost 
engulfs the Congressional Record is contributed by Kew England Senators and 
Members, the burden of whose lay is the alleged denial of representation to voters 
in other sections than their own. Mr. Speaker Reed (in speeches and interviews 
and magazine articles in the last six months) has clamored without cessation for the 
doctrine that so many black voters in the South, constitutiong a certain percentage 
of the population, are entitled to a proportionate number of Representatives in 
Congress. It is for securing this end that the election measures which he so 
earnestly advocates are to be directed. If he will only consent to apply the same 
principle to his own section the measures to be brought forward would most 
probably receive a much stronger support than is likely to come to them under 
existing circumstances. 

It is really astonishing that so little comment has been provoked by the con- 
dition of political affairs in New England. It is marvelous that the descendants 
of the Anglo-Saxon race have not risen in revolution at the denial of political 
rights which has prevailed for more than half a century. No such Congressional 
and Legislative gerrymandering has been continued or enforced elsewhere in 
the world as that existing in New England for Republican benefit. At the 
last Congressional elections in November, 1888, the Republicans polled an aggre- 
gate of 449,090 votes, and the opposition polled 378,477, or very much more than 
two-fifths. Yet the Republicans have all of the twelve Senators from New Eng- 
land, and twenty-three out of twenty-six Representatives. 

In Connecticut the Republicans were in a minority of more than three thou- 
sand, yet they have the two Senators and three of the four Representatives. In 
New Hampshire the Republicans polled 45,271 votes, and the opposition 45,430, 
yet the Republicans hold on to both Senators and both Representatives. In Rhode 
Island the Republicans have held on to power not only by unfair apportionments, 
but by the most wholesale disfranchisement of citizens. That State is bound to 
slip from them now, and if it is ever possible to receive a reasonably fair appor- 
tionment Connecticut and New Hampshire would soon follow suit. 

The Republican Senators and Representatives from New England, so many of 
whom are occupying seats to which they are not justly entitled, have put them- 
selves into positions of commanding influence in both brandies of Congress. In 
the Senate they are at the head of the most important and influential committees, 
and exercise a control over legislation monstrously unequal. Of the two Maine 
Senators Mr. Frye is at the head of the Committee on Commerce, and Mr. Hale is 
chairman of the Committee on Census. The two New Hampshire Senators re- 
spectively head the Committee on Education and Labor and Immigration. The 
Senators from the insignificant State of Vermont, which hardly contributes enough 
to the national Treasury to pay its own office-holders, preside over the Committees 
on Finance and the Judiciary. The Massachusetts Senators have the chairman- 
r'-ips of the Committees on Privileges and Elections and on Indian Affairs. 
Senator Aldrich, of Rhode Island, is chairman of the Committee on Rules. The 



THK FORCK BILL. 81 

two Connecticut Senators hold the Committees on Territories and on Military 
Affairs. Mr, Dixon, of Rhode Island, is the only New England Senator who is 
not a chairman. This is because he only came to the Senate in November last. 
But it may be taken for granted that in a short time he will be found at the head 
of some big committee. 

In the House we have Mr. Reed, of Maine, whose election is only compassed 
by wholesale and open bribery, assuming despotic power in the Speaker's chair, 
and at the same time acting as chairman of the Committee on Rules. Of his col- 
leagues, Mr. Dingley is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which is 
equivalent to a chairmanship ; Mr. Boutelle is chairman of the Committee on Na- 
val Affairs, and Mr. Milliken of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds; 
Mr. Spooner, of Rhode Island, is chairman of the Committee on Accounts ; Mr. 
Grout, of Vermont, is chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia; 
Mr. Banks, of Massachusetts, is chairman of the Committee on Expenditures and 
the Interior Department; Mr. Lodge, of Massachusetts, chairman of the Commit- 
tee on the Election of President and Vice-President, and Mr. Candler, of Massa- 
chusetts, chairman of the Committee on the Quadro-Centennial. 

It need not be supposed that these New England Republicans, who have 
walked into Congress over the slaughtered political rights of nearly one-half the 
population of their section, are satisfied with monopolizing the chairmanships of 
the principal committees. They will be found stowed away in top places of all 
other desirable committees, so that their influence permeates every species of 
legislation for every section. Effrontery has long been characteristic of the New 
England Republican Congressmen, but it is difficult to conceive how they, the bene- 
ficiaries of the almost complete practical denial of political rights to hundreds of 
thousands of white voters, can assume to discourse so much upon alleged and 
imaginary similar instances as to black voters. 

What would Happen to the Republican Party if the IVegro 
Vote were Suppressed. 

From the speech of Hon. E. H. Bunn, of North Carolina: 

The greatest rates of increase of the colored population in the Northern 
States since the war has been in the West. That race, like the whites, have taken 
the advice of Mr. Greeley to go West. 

The following statement shows the number of Representatives and the num- 
ber of electoral votes to which each State is entitled under the apportionment act 
of 1882, and the number to which they would be entitled if the colored population 
were excluded from the right of suffrage. 

In the first place, as has been stated, the division of the total population of 
the States by the number of Representatives, 325, shows that the population for 
each Congressional district, if the country could be divided equally, would be 151,- 
911.8. But if the white population of the States, which amounts to 42,714,479, be 
divided by 325, the apportionment to the several districts will be 131, 429. And 
dividing the white population of the several States by that number will show the 
number of Representatives to which they would be entitled on that basis, as 
follows : 



11 



82 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



States. 



Alabama - 

Arkansas 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Kentucky •. . 

Louisiana ',. 

Maryland 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

North Carolina. 
South Carolina . 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Virginia 

West Virginia.. 



Total. 



Total pop- 
ulation. 



1,262,505 

802,525 

146,608 

269,493 

1,542,180 

1,648,690 

939,946 

934,943 

1,131,597 

2,168,380 

1,399,750 

995,577 

l,542,a59 

1,591,749 

1,512,565 

618,457 



18,507,324 



White 
populati'n 



662,185 
591,531 
120,160 
142,605 
816,905 

1,377,179 
454,954 
724,693 
479,398 

2,022,826 
867,242 
391,ia5 

1,138,831 

1,197,237 
880,858 
592,537 



120 






6X 
3 

3— 
8— 

12— 
5— 
8X 
6X 

17- 
9X 
5X 

IIX 

12— 
9X 
6X 



California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Maine 

Massachusetts... 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire. 

New Jersey 

New York 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania.... 
Rhode Island.... 

Vermont 

Wisconsin 



Total 



864,694 

194,327 

622,700 

3,077,871 

1,978,301 

1,624,615 

996,096 

648,936 

1,783,085 

1,636,937 

780,773 

452,402 

62,266 

346,991 

1,131,116 

5,082,871 

3,198,062 

174,768 

4,282,891 

276,531 

332,286 

1,315,497 



30,864,016 



204 



767,181 

191,126 

610,769 

3,031,151 

1,938,798 

1,614,600 

952,155 

646,852 

1,763,783 

1,614,560 

776,884 

449,764 

53,556 

346,229 

1,092,017 

5,016,022 

3,117,920 

163,075 

4,197,016 

269,939 

331,218 

1,309,618 



30,254,232 248 



President Harrison carried twenty States. . . 
President Cleveland carried eighteen States. 



5,439,877 
5,538,421 



Cleveland's majority over Harrison 98,.544 



Harrison's electoral vote.. 
Cleveland's electoral vote. 



233 
168 



CLEVELAND STATES. 



Alabama 

Arkansas 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Florida 

Georgia 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maryland 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

New Jersey 

North Carolina 
South Carolina. 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Virginia 

West Virginia.. 

Total 




THE FORCK BILL. 



5o 



HARRISON STATES. 



California. 
Colorado.. 
Illinois ... 
Indiana... 
Iowa 



Kansas 

Maine 

Massachusetts.. 

Michigan 

Minnesota... — 

Nebraska 

Nevada. 



New Hampshire. 

New York 

Ohio 

Oregon. 



Pennsylvania. 
Rhode Island. 

Vermont 

Wisconsin 



Total. 



Electoral 


On white 


vote. 


vote 




8 




8 


3 




4 


33 




35 


15 




17 


13 




14 


9 




9 


6 




7 


14 




15 


13 




14 


7 




8 


5 




5 


3 




3 


4 




5 


36 




40 


33 




36 


3 




3 


30 




m 


4 




4 


4 




5 


11 




13 



It will be seen from this calculation that if the electoral vote as now con- 
stituted were divided according to the white vote — 

The Cleveland States would have had in the electoral college 143 

The Harrison States 258 

Total reduction » 401 

But if you were to exclude the negro vote it would change the State of — 

Indiana 15 



New York. 
Ohio 



40 
26 



Total 81 

Add the 143 

Total Democratic vote 224 

With a good chance of carrying also the State of Illinois. This alone would 
have elected Cleveland by a very decided majority. A careful study of these 
figures will possibly explain why our friends on the other side are so constant in 
their efforts to consolidate the negro vote. 

The vote would stand : 

Democratic 224 

Kepublican 177 

Democratic majority 47 

explanatory. 

Hon. A. D. Candler, Georgia: 

No intelligent man can doubt the veracity or the loyalty to the Republican 
party of such men as Governor Bullock, the only Republican governor Georgia has 
ever had, and General Longstreet, who incurred the anathemas of his own people 
by becoming a Republican in the dark and stormy days of reconstruction. These 
and many other Republicans of equal character and ability testify to the truth of 



84 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

what I have said [concerning negro vote]. Republican members of Congress now 
here on this floor corroborate this testimony. They have done so openly here 
to-day. They are the equals in veracity of those of you who favor this bill, and 
their opportunity for knowing the true situation in the South has been far better 
than yours. 

The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is, that the average plantation negro 
has never appreciated his responsibility as a citizen. The ballot was thrust upon 
him when he was utterly and totally unprepared for it. He regards it as a bauble, 
a plaything, or an article of merchandise. He regards election day as a public 
holiday. He goes to the polls as he goes to the circus, or to a public execution — 
for a frolic. If unapproached by any one, he would, in a majority of cases go 
away without depositing his ballot. As it is, one-half of them can not tell you 
the day after the election for whom they voted. That there are many persons in 
the country who really believe that the negro vote in the South is suppressed, I 
concede. That there are gentlemen on this floor who honestly entertain the same 
opinion, I have no doubt. But they are mistaken. The fact that Democrats are 
sent here from districts having a heavy preponderance of negro population is not 
an evidence of the suppression of the negro vote. That there were frauds and 
irregularities in elections in the South soon after the close of the war of secession, 
before the animosities of that unhappy conflict had had time to cool, and when 
our young men were exasperated by the disfranchisement of their fathers and the 
enthronement of ignorance and venality is doubtless true. But that these crimes 
have grown less and less frequent, and that now their occurrence is as rare as in 
any other portion of the country is equally true. 

The Real Reason for the Passage of the Force Bill. 

Hon. Chas. H. Mansur, Missouri. 

I shall not discuss this bill but will discuss the motives that have led up to the 
necessity for it upon the other side of this chamber. Unquestionably it is the 
logical result of the situation in which they find themselves, after thirty years of 
control in this country. Commencing with Lincoln, in 1860, his plurality was 
491,249, his minority 948,055 votes. In 1864 Mr. Lincoln's majority was 407,342. In 
1868 Grant's majority was 305,458 , in 1872 Grant's majority was 727,975 ; but in 1876 
Tilden's majority was 157,020, while his plurality over Hayes was 250,918. From 
that day to this, through fourteen long years, the Republican party, with the aid of 
the colored vote that they could command, have never been other than a minority 
of the people of this nation. 

In 1880 Mr. Garfield's plurality was 3,834; his minority 314,253. In 1884 
Cleveland's plurality was 26,584; his minority 403,773, but Blaine's minority was 
430,357. In 1888 Harrison's minority under Cleveland was 98,544, but his minority 
of the whole vote was 945,060. 

Their great leaders know the necessity to provide for it. *' He who is ugly, 
but whom we know to be great," foreshadowed this bill when at Pittsburgh he 
declared we " must do our own registration, our own counting, and our own certi- 
fying." They know that Iowa, that proud State, which in 1880 was the banner 
Republican State of the Union, and gave 78,000 majority for Garfield for President, 
has been swept away from her Republican moorings, and that on the count of last 
November State election a majority of her districts gave Democratic majorities 
instead of Republican. They know that to-day for the first time in over thirty 



THEJ FORCE BII.I.. 85 

years a Democrat is governor at Des Moines City, the capital of the State. 
[Applause.] 

They know that throughout the West similar influences are at work. They 
know that the same power that wrecked their party in Iowa is sweeping over 
Kansas, Nebraska, all the great West. They know as well as we the changes that 
are going on in the West, and they know that the people of this country are be- 
coming very tired of these attempts at striking down the Constitution for the 
purpose of perpetuating a partisan party in power, and hence this bill. [Loud 
applause.] 

Some Things about Wbicli the Bill Takes the Bole of 
'^ Bignified Silence." 

Any law providing for the complete control of elections, if 
intended to be promotive in any degrees of honesty and fairness, 
should somewhere place a penalty on bribery, but the Force bill 
has many provisions to encourage but none to discourage this 
favorite method of the Republican party in winning elections. 

The following are mementoes of the Republican campaign 
of 1888, as to the success of which the man that now occupies 
the White House declared: '' The Lord did it.'' 

[Confldential.] 
Headquarters Republican League op the United States, 

New York, May 25, 1888. 

My Dear Sir : Tlie Republican League of the United States desires to bring 
you face to face with the startling fact that the coming Presidential election is 
not to be fought on the old party lines which have heretofore divided Democrats 
and Republicans, but upon the direct issue of free trade vs. protection. We will 
win this fight if you will do your share and help us to finish what we have begun. 
We want money, and want it at once. 

It may not be of your personal knowledge, but it is a fact, nevertheless, that 
the manufacturers of the United States who are most benefited by our tariff laws 
have been the least willing to contribute to the success of the party which gave 
them protection and which is about to engage in a life-and-death struggle with 
free trade. 

A Republican United States Senator, from a State which never had a Demo- 
cratic Representative in either House of Congress or a Democratic State ofiicer, 
in speaking of the well-known disposition of the manufacturing interests to lock 
up its money, fold its hands, and look on while somebody else fights for its suc- 
cess, says: 

The campaign which we are about to enter will concern, more than anybody 
else, the manufacturers of this country. They have hitherto been very laggard 
in their contributions to the Republican cause. In fact, if I could punish them,, 
without punishing the cause of protection itself, I would consign them to the 
hottest place I could think of, on account of their craven parsimony. If this class 
of people do not care to contribute to the success of the Republican party, they 
are welcome to try their chances under a Democratic administration ; I can stand 
it as long as they can. 

In fact, I have it from the best possible source that the manufacturers of 
Pennsylvania, who are more highly protected than anybody else, and who make 
large fortunes every year when times are prosperous, practically give nothing 



86 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

towards tlie maintenance of the ascendancy of the Republican party. Of course 
I shall not violate what I consider to be a proper principle of action, but if I had 
my way about it I would put the manufacturers of Pennsylvania under the fire 
and fry all the fat out of them. If the Mills tariff bill comes to the Senate there 
will be some votes cast there which will open the eyes of some of these people 
who have, while gathering their millions, treated the Republican party as their 
humble servant. 

These are strong words, and bitter, but they are true, and it now remains with 
you and your associates to determine whether they are to be reiterated after this 
campaign is over, and protection has, through your apathy, been struck its death- 
blow. If you give us the means to win the victory we will do it. Are you will- 
ing ? Yours, very truly, 

JAS. P. FOSTER, President. 

Mr. Quay, the chairman of the national Republican campaign committee, 
adopted the suggestion of Mr. Foster. The manufacturers, not only of Pennsyl- 
vania, but of the whole country, were put " under the fire" and " the fat was fried 
out of them." 

This is the testimony of Hon. John Wanamaker, the distinguished politician 
and statesman, who, for his knowledge of this new branch of statecraft, was made 
Postmaster-General of this purchased administration. In February, 1889, he said : 

When Quay sent for me I was surprised. I had no more idea of what he 
wanted with me than you might have if he telegraphed for you. But I knew he 
was not the kind of man to send for me unless he had important business with me, 
so I went. Then he told me that the national Republican committee needed money, 
and his scheme for my raising it. I at first declined to have anything to do with 
it. I had very little hope of defeating Cleveland, and still less Mrs. Cleveland 
who is justly popular with the whole country, and whom I admire greatly myself, 
and I did not want to get on a sinking ship. He urged the matter, told me why he 
felt sure of carrying the election if he had the money. Even then I hesitated, and 
asked three weeks for consideration. He agreed, and I talked with our leading 
manufacturers, men whose names are the best in the land — such men as Washburne, 
Amos Lawrence's grandson, and a dozen others I could name — men who would 
never have given a dollar for dishonest uses, even if I had been willing to ask it, 
and at the end of three weeeks I told Quay I would undertake to raise the money 
if he would allow us to establish a manufacturers' bureau and have a voice in the 
disposition of the money. I do not mean that we insisted on knowing what was 
done with every dollar of it. I did not want to know. When I sell a suit of 
clothes, I do not insist upon being told just where these clothes are going. My 
responsibility ceases when I furnish a good article at a fair price. What I did 
insist upon was that I should be able to satisfy the men who trusted me with their 
money that it was used for the purposes for which they subscribed it, and that 
guaranty Mr, Quay gave me. That is how there came to be a manufacturers' 
bureau. 

Of this Hon. B. A. Enloe said: 

Here we have the spectacle of a man of excellent reputation engaged in a 
three weeks' struggle with his conscience about using his character as a collateral 
to raise money to corrupt the ballot and buy an election. Who can tell what 
wild dreams of official and social position floated before his mental vision during 
those three weeks ? Mr. Wanamaker had been fighting the devil manfully for 
many years, it is said, but when the devil set Quay on him there was no Ithuriel 
spear to touch the toad at his ear and show his ancient enemy in a new form. 
He made ignorance as to what particular crimes were committed through that 
money a salve to his conscience. Mr. Wanamaker had a good character before he 
entered politics. He disposed of it very cheap. 



THB FORC:^ BILL. 87 

Col. Elliott F. Shepard, editor of the New York Mail and Express, published 
the following testimony in his paper of November 22, 1888 : 

Of the money so liberally contributed by the Republicans in this city for 
election expenses, three very large sums were paid out which brought in only 
about 1,350 votes as the result of these expensive negotiations. The Coogan 
Labor vote cast for Harrison and Miller amounted to 1,200; the James O'Brien 
Protection Democracy vote, 50 ; the John J. O'Brien vote, beyond what is the 
normal vote in the Eighth district, to 100 votes. On Saturday before election 
there was paid by the national committee for use in this city to a Republican 
State leader, as we are informed, the great sum of about $150,000, and as none 
of this went to the county committee, it is fair to presume this very large sum 
was used in the three negotiations referred to. 

The success of the Republican party in this city is to be achieved by edu- 
cating the masses in Republican doctrines, by the circulation of the Republican 
newspapers, and the continual holding of mass-meetings ; and we hope we have 
seen the last of attempts to buy voters en blov, in all which attempts for the past 
twenty-six years we have been buying experience and not votes, been filling and 
trimming the lamps of our opponents and emptying our own. 

Colonel Shepard evidently thinks votes sold too high ; that it took too large a 
block of " fat " to grease such a small " block" of voters. 

It seems that some of the floaters got away. 

The Manufacturer's Becord, of Philadelphia, of April, 1889, contained this 
statement in regard to Mr. Wanamaker's services in the election: 

It is, therefore, to the men that give the cash that a large, if not the largest, 
share of success is due. These, almost always, are the business men. We make 
the assertion that the money contributed by this (Manufacturers') club last year 
had mor^ influence upon the result of the national election than all the skill, the 
ingenuity, the labor, and the wire-pulling of all the professional politicians in the 
city of Philadelphia. We believe this proposition to be capable of positive proof. 
If, therefore, control of patronage is rightly the reward of victorious efforts, the. 
right of this club to name the Federal oflBce-holders of Philadelphia rests upon 
solid ground. * * * The leaders, we suppose, will claim that they are the men 
who win victories, and that their generalship entitles them to special considera- 
tion. But they can win no triumphs without strong backing in money and votes 
from the best members of their party. If the politicians had had to fight single- 
handed the battle of last November, Mr. Cleveland would now be in the White 
House. They were literally smitten with paralysis until the manufacturers and 
other business men came to the rescue, not only with abundant supplies of money 
but with a determination to carry the day by \iM^ worls and actively exerted in- 
fluence. That was how the fight was won. 

Here is the evidence of the distributor: 

Headquarters Republican National Committee, 

91 Fifth Avenue, New York, October 24. 

[Executive Committee: M. S. Quay, chairman; J. S. Clarkson, vice-chairman; J. 
S. Fassett, secretary ; William W. Dudley, treasurer ; John C. New, A. L. Con- 
ger, C. A. Hobart, Samuel Fessenden, George R. Davis, J. Manchester Haynes, 
M. H. De Young, William Cassius Goodloe.] 
Dear Sir : I hope you have kept copies of the lists sent me. Such informa- 
tion is very valuable and should be used to great advantage. It has enabled me 
to demonstrate to friends that with proper assistance Indiana is surely Republican 
for governor and President, and has resulted, as I hoped it would, in securing for 
Indiana the aid necessary. Your committee will certainly receive from Chairman 



88 DKMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Huston the assistance necessary to hold our floaters and doubtful voters and gain 
enough of the other kind to give Harrison and Morton 10,000 plurality. 

New York is now safe beyond peradventure for the Republican Presidential 
ticket; Connecticut likewise. In short, every Northern State, except perhaps 
New Jersey, though we still hope to carry that State. Harrison's majority in the 
Electoral College will not be less than 100. Make our friends in each precinct 
wake up to the fact that only boodle and fraudulent votes and false counting of 
returns can beat us in the State. Write each of our precinct corrrespondents — 
Pirst. To find out who has Democratic boodle, and steer the Democratic workers 
to them, and make them ["pay big prices for their own men. Second. Scan the 
election oflicers closely, and make sure to have no man on the board whose integ- 
rity is even questionable, and insist on Republicans watching every movement 
of the election officers. Third. See that our workers know every voter entitled to 
a vote, and let no one else even offer to vote. Fourth. Divide the floaters into 
blocks of five, and put a trusted man with necessary funds in charge of these five, 
and make him responsible that none get away and that all vote our ticket. Fifth. 
Make a personal appeal to your best business men to pledge themselves to devote 
-the entire day, November 6, to work at the polls — that is, to be present at the polls 
with tickets. They will be astonished to see how utterly dumbfounded the ordi- 
nary Democratic election bummer will be and how quickly he will disappear. The 
result will fully justify the sacrifice of time and comfort, and will be a source of 
satisfaction afterwards to those who help in this way. Lay great stress on this 
last matter. It will pay. 

There will be no doubt of your receiving the necessary assistance through the 
national. State, and county committees ; only see that it is husbanded and made 
to produce results. I rely on you to advise your precinct correspondents and 
urge them to unremitting and constant efforts from now till the polls close and 
the result is announced oflicially. We will fight for a fair election here if neces- 
sary. The rebel crew cannot steal this election from us as they did in 1884 with- 
out some one getting hurt. Let every Republican do his whole duty and the 
country will pass into Republican hands, never to leave it, I trust. Thanking you 
again for your efforts to assist me in my work, I remain, 

Yours, sincerely, 

WM. W. DUDLEY. 

Please wire me result in principal precincts and county. 

Dudley at Harrison's Home. 

President Harrison has been in power fifteen months. His administration 
thus far shows that he has rewarded with high office nearly every prominent man 
who helped elect him. Wanamaker has been given a Cabinet portfolio. The 
leading Republican editors have been decorated with commissions to serve their 
country as foreign ministers, with the solitary exception of Dr. Murat Halstead, 
whose high ambition was thwarted by the Senate. Dudley, indicted for inciting 
to bribery, in purchasing the fioating vote of Indiana, has been cared for by saving 
him from the penitentiary. This was accomplished through the instrumentality 
of Judge Woods, of the district court of Indiana. 

THE ERMINE AROUND THE ARCH BRIBER. 

The history of this outrage on justice is as follows : Immediately after the 
gross election frauds of 1888, in Indiana, were discovered, a warrant was sworn 



THK FORCE BILIv. 89 

out for Dudley's arrest, by a most reputable citizen, but Dudley absented himself 
for nearly a year from the State and there was no opportunity for serving it. He 
was an exile and a fugitive, and the officers of the United States, whose laws he 
had broken, made not a single effort to arrest him. Indeed, there were positive 
orders from Washington not to interfere with him in any way or give him the 
slightest inconvenience. Had he not saved Indiana and elected a Republican 
President ? Judge Woods at one time, in one of his charges to the grand jury of 
Indianapolis, led the country to believe that he would do his duty in the matter ; 
but, instructed from Washington, he positively directed the grand jury to let the 
blocks-of-five bribers go quit and free. Dudley about this time was threatening to 
use the "dynamite" he had in his possession unless the Harrison beneficiaries of 
his crime came to his rescue. Two more contradictory charges of a United States 
judge were probably never delivered in the case of any one accused of crime. 
Here they are, side by side : 

ORIGINAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THEGR AND REVISED INSTRUCTIONS. 

'^^^^' It results, of course, that the mere 

The latter clause of the section sending by one to another, of a letter or 
makes any one guilty who counsels document containing advice to bribe a 
bribery. * * * This clause makes it voter, or setting forth a scheme for such 
an offense for any one to advise another bribery, however bold and reprehensible, 
to attempt to commit any of the offenses is not indictable. There must be shown 
named in this section ; so that, while it in addition an attempt by the receiver of 
is not a crime to make the attempt, it is the letter, or of some other instigated by 
a crime to advise another to- make the him to execute the scheme by bribing or 
attempt. If A attempts to bribe B, that attempting to bribe some voter in re- 
is no offense under this statute ; but if A spect to the election of Congressmen, or 
advises B to bribe C, then the one who in such way as to affect such elections, 
commends or gives this advice is an Another point deserves consider- 

off ender under this law. And I will say ation in this connection. If the view be 
that there is some wisdom in this pro- adopted that advice not acted upon may 
vision. constitute a crime, then the exact words 

used in giving the advice, whether oral 
or written, must be ascertained, and 
every possible intendment in favor of 
innocence must be allowed and all 
doubts resolved in favor of the accused. 
If the use of money be advised, but the 
particular purpose of its use be not 
clearly and indeed conclusively indi- 
cated, a possible innocent use will be 
presumed; and even if the purpose to 
bribe be unquestionable, and yet it ap- 
pears that the design was to purchase 
votes for other officers than Representa- 
tives in Congress, it would be no crime 
under the statute which is designed to 
protect the election for that office. 

DUDLEY GOES QUIT AND FREE. 

Dudley, after an absence of more tnan a year, returned to Indianapolis last 
December. Chambers, an appointee of President Harrison, declined to arrest him, 
and openly defended the blocks-of-five letter. 

This bill proposes to give the country more examples of the 
Federal judiciary in politics. 

These are a few of the evidences of the Republican party's 
12 



90 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

desire for pure elections. There are many more out of the mouths 
of prominent Republicans, but these are enough to show the 
party's sincerity. 

It may be stated, in conclusion, that Col. Dudley brought 
suit for libel against several New York newspapers that pub- 
lished his letter, but that he refused to give his testimony in the 
cases, and they have since been dismissed. 

The Force bill has been reported to the Senate with some 
amendments to lessen its evils in some respects, and has been 
postponed until the next session. There is now much talk about 
an extra session to consider this measure, and the people may 
rest assured that, whatever election bill passes or whenever it 
passes this Congress, it will be substantially as this bill is shown 
to be. 

The friends of the bill have a violent purpose to accomplish, 
and they can accomplish it only with a Force bill. 

Reporting the bill to the Senate in an amended form is a 
mere subterfuge to deceive the people until after the election, 
when the Republicans will attempt to enact the bill with all the 
provisions for violence and fraud in it; and besides, the whole 
system of Federal control of elections is vicious. 



SPEAKER RKKD'S RUI.KS AND RULINGS. 91 



SPEAKER REED, HIS RULES AND RULINGS. 



THE HOUSE DEMORALIZED—RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY 

IGNORED. 



The proceedings of the House during the first session of the 
Fifty-first Congress have been characterized by the most remark- 
able events that ever occurred in any free parliamentary body. 
That sense of regard and respect for the just authority of the chair 
that had marked the relationship between the presiding officer 
and the members on the floor, throughout the history of the 
House, has been entirely destroyed. There was aroused in the 
beginning of the session a distrust of the Speaker, and a feeling 
of uneasiness and uncertainty as to what he would decide upon 
any particular question, which has continued to exist through- 
out the session; and his ruling upon a particular point at one 
time has in no wise served to allay the feeling of uneasiness and 
uncertainty as to how he would rule upon the same point when 
it should be again presented; and this feeling has been singu- 
larly justified by experience. Confidence in ^the integrity of its 
own officers has been utterly destroyed; and tlfe scenes of disorder 
and disrespect for the chair, and the absence of mutual regard 
for the rights of members existing on the floor; the disgraceful 
and brutal hand-to-hand fights among the members of the 
Republican majority, together with the indecent and profane 
utterances on the Republican side of the House, worthy only of 
the most degraded blackguard and street ruffian, attest too well 
for dispute the state of absolute demoralization that has been 
brought into the body by the pernicious influence of a Speaker 
bent upon setting aside every precedent for the maintenance of 
decorum and the assurance of orderly procedure. Willingness 
on the part of Republican members to uphold their Speaker in 
his suppression of the rights of the minority, or of individual 
members of the minority, have given away to violent denuncia- 
tions of his arbitrary conduct whenever, for his own purposes, 
he has disregarded the rights of individual members of the 
majority. 

The Republican caucus has become the forum in which is 
discussed, if discussed at all, the bills that are to be enacted into 
laws to govern the people, and in that caucus the only consider- 



92 - DKMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

ation that has weighed with its members has been the probable 
effect of the various measures on the future of the Republican 
party. The caucus, dominated by the Speaker, has issued its 
mandates to the Committee on Rules, presided over by the same 
officer, and that committee has dictated the order of business in 
the House. 

The rules, adopted avowedly to facilitate the dispatch of 
business, have been set aside by rulings of the chair, and resolu- 
tions and special orders reported from this agent of the caucus 
without notice to the House ; and these resolutions and orders, 
cutting off amendments and debate, have been adopted .without 
proper discussion by the representatives of the people. 

In consequence of this lamentable state of affairs not a 
single measure of importance, about which there existed a 
material difference of opinion, has been passed, save under such 
direction of the caucus and a special order from the committee 
that executes its commands ; and the legislation of the session, 
in almost every consequential feature, has been unconsidered, 
crude, of at least doubtful constitutionality, and distinguished 
by the same spirit of unfairness, ill temper, partisanship and 
acrimony that has pervaded the House itself and directed its 
proceedings. 

It is proper that the people should know something of what 
this Speaker has done, in order that in casting their votes they 
may do so with the consciousness that a Republican ballot rig- 
nifies, or will be understood to signify, approval of the dangerous 
departure that the House has made from the old, safe and tried 
ways that were pursued down to the time of Mr. Reed's accession 
to the speakership. 

The consideratk)n that the Speaker has displayed *' the mock 
heroism of brazen mfrontery," and that his talents in a question- 
able way are not denied, serves only to aggravate his offence 
against the precedents of a century. 

In an early day of the Republic this plea was offered in 
palliation of what some persons, (whether properly or improperly), 
considered extraordinary proceedings upon the part of a public 
man of that time, and to it another statesman replied : *' He is 
brilliant ; yes, he is brilliant. He shines and stinks like rotten 
mackerel in the moonlight.'' 

Mr. Reed, much to his disadvantage, is a different order of 
man from the statesman of whom that remark was made, and 
of him it may be repeated with entire propriety. 

To enumerate all the outrages perpetrated by the Speaker 
and the majority would be a task impossible of performance. 
But, as tests of his sincerity in his recent rulings, two very dis- 
tinct utterances of his, made before he became Speaker, may be 
quoted. First, from the Congressional Record, Forty-sixth 
Congress, vol. 10, part 1, pages 578, 579, January 28, 1880 : 

Mr. Reed. Mr. Chairman, if it was my purpose to reply to the gentleman 
who has just taken his seat, it seems to me that it would be a suitable and proper 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS. 93 

reply to say to liim. that tlie constitutional idea of a quorum is not the presence of a 
majority of the members of tJie House, but a majority of the members present and par- 
ticipating in the business of the House. It is not the visible presence of members, but 
their judgments and their votes, that tJie Constitution calls for. 

I prefer, however, in the short time which I have, to discuss this question 
upon a different basis. This privilege which the [Republican] minority of the 
House, at the last session, availed itself of, is a privilege which every minority has 
availed itself of since the foundation of this Government, 

What is the practical upshot of the present practice ? It is that the members 
of the minority of this House upon great occasions demand that every bill which 
•is passed shall receive the absolute vote of a majority of the members elected. 
They do this in the face and eyes of the country. If they demand upon any 
frivolous occasion that there shall be such an extraordinary vote as that, they do 
it subject to the censure of the people of this land. This practice has hitherto 
kept this House in proper condition upon this subject, so that there has been no 
improper impeding of the public business. 

It is a valuable privilege for the country that the minority shall have the right by this 
extraordinary mode of proceeding to call the attention of the country to measures which a 
party ^ in a moment of madness and of party feeling , is endeavoring to enforce upon the 
citizens of this land. And it works equally well with regard to all parties, for all parties 
have their times when they need to be checked, so that they may receive the opinions of the 
people, who are their constituents and who are interested in the results of their legislation. 
I say, that as a practical matter, the results hitherto throughout all our history have 
justified the construction which those upon this side of the House have put upon the 
Tnatter, and which has been put equally by members of the other side in times past. 

Second, from the Chautauqua of June 18, 1886, an article 
written by Hon. Thomas B. Reed : 

The aim of some statesmen has been not to do things good, but to prevent the 
doing of things evil. It can not be denied that this aim is^uite often a righteous 
one. But the prevention of evil legislation should never b^y refusing propositions 
a%earing, but by hearing and refuting. This brings me to remark that some legis- 
lation consists not more in what is done than in what is refused to be done. 
Whoever thinks that the function of a legislative body in a free country is fully 
performed by the mere passage of bills, good or bad, has liHtle comprehension of 
the scope and real usefulness of such a body. * * * The reformation of the 
rules will remove a great many obstacles to legislation. A great many remain to 
intelligent legislation, using the word in the broad sense in which it has been em- 
ployed in this article. Among these obstacles is the tendency which now exists to 
deny discussion in many cases, and the tendency to employ an unsuitable form of 
discussion in others. A full, free, frank discussion is the very life of intelligent action. 

Nobody knows everything ; most people know something. Men are circum- 
scribed in their knowledge by their various experiences. If all those who know 
something of the subject assemble their knowledge a sensible judgment can be 
formed by those who listen. But there has been in this country for the past half 
century so many subjects of bitter feeling involving bitter words that the tendency 
to suppress discussion in Congress by those who have the power has reached a point where 
there ought to be a reaction in favor of freer debate. In no other countries in th'e world 
is such power of shutting off debates lodged in the majority. The previous question 
ias been employed without mercy. It is in the memory of all that until the last 



94 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

few years the House of Commons never had such a thing as the " previous ques- 
tion " in our sense of the term. 

There was no power in the House to close debate. The Irish members, simply 
by talking, were able to prevent the passage of bills which had the approval of a 
vast majority of the House. Even since the strong provocation has caused the 
introduction of the cloture, debate can not be closed, except by the presiding offi- 
cer, under such circumstances and under such requirements of support from the 
House as in that body secures a right of debate which is much greater than in our 
House of Representatives. The hesitancy with which so slight a measure of sup- 
pression was adopted in England, strikes with a shade of surprise an American 
legislator, accustomed in Congress to see discussion drowned with as little remorse . 
as if it were a sightless kitten. But the English are right. Unreasonable and 
capricious suppression of discussion is tyranny^ whether done ly a king or a majority. 

Then the following from the pen of Hon. Amos Cum- 
MINGS, of New York, will exhibit some of the rulings : 

1.— Reed and Randall. 

When Thomas B. Reed picked up the gavel as Speaker of the House of Rep- 
resentatives he said : " So far as the duties are political, I sincerely hope that 
they may be performed with a proper sense of what is due to the people of this 
whole country. So far as they are parliamentary, I hope with equal sincerity that 
they may be performed with a proper sense of what is due to both sides of this 
chamber. To the end that I may satisfactorily carry out your will, I invoke the 
considerate judgment and cordial aid of all the members of the House." 

These were fair words. The Democratic minority was evidently disposed to 
accept them in the spirit in which they appeared to be offered. All ag:. jed that 
Mr. Carlisle had been eminently fair in his rulings and recognitions. Mr. Reed's 
speech indicated that he was prepared to follow his example. A few Democrats, 
however, looked upon him as an over-bitter partisan. They prophesied that he 
would be more apt to follow in the footsteps of Speaker Keifer than in those of 
Speaker Carlisle. They never dreamed that he would out-Keifer Keifer. 

Samuel J. Randall was not among these illboding prophets. In conversation 
with a visitor, early irf December, he said : *' An aggressive man broadens when 
he becomes Speaker. He watches himself and knows his own failings and the 
strength of his impulses, and is more than ever controlled by his sense of what is 
right. He tries to be governed by a strict sense of duty, and would be more apt 
to protect a political opponent by his rulings than to favor a friend. I think that 
Mr. Reed will try to be fair in his parlimentary rulings." 

Mr. Randall added that he spoke from experience. He was himself intensely 
aggressive while upon the floor, but when he became Speaker of the House he 
could feel himself broaden. He was governed by a strict desire and a positive 
determination to carry out the rules of the House, regardless of friend or foe. 

II.— General Parliamentary liaw. 

It seems, however, that Mr. Randall was mistaken in Mr. Reed. The House 
at first adopted no rules. It ran under what was termed general parliamentary 
law for more than two months. Under this system the Speaker construed general 
parliamentary law to suit himself and the interests of his party. His bias was 
'first shown on Jannuary 7. Mr. McComas, of Maryland, moved that the House go 



SPEAKER REKD'S RULES AND RULINGS. 95 

into committee of the whole on the state of the Union, for the consideration of 
the District of Columbia appropriation bill, "under the rules of the last House." 

This motion opened the eyes of the Democrats. It showed that the Eepublicans 
meant to use the rules of the last House when it served their purpose, and to do 
without rules and trust to the Speaker under "general parliamentary law" at 
other times. Mr. Breckinridge of Kentucky raised the question of consideration. 
The Speaker refused to entertain it, on the ground that such a question could not 
be raised on a motion to go into committee of the whole. Mr. Breckinridge 
replied that it was not simply a question of going into committee of the whole, 
"but also a motion for the temporary adoption of rules for the government of the 
House. The Speaker insisted upon his ruling and an appeal was taken. The 
decision was sustained by a vote of 142 yeas to 120 nays. Mr. Bland of Missouri 
called for tellers. The Speaker ordered them, and Mr. McComas and Mr. Breckin- 
ridge had taken their places at the mouth of the main aisle when the yeas and 
nays were secured upon the demand of Major McKinley. 

Let the reader note that Mr. Bland had called for tellers and the Speaker had 
appointed them. 

Mr. McCoMAS then moved the previous question on his resolution. What fol- 
lowed is quoted from the Record: 

Mr. Beeckinbidge of Kentucky. Pending that demand I move that the 
House adjourn until Thursday. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky moves that the House do now 
adjourn. (The question was now put.) The nays seem to have it. 

Several members called for a division. 

Mr. Bland. The motion was to adjourn over till Thursday. 

The Speaker. That motion is not in order. The question is upon the mo- 
tion to adjourn, upon which a division has been called for. 

Mr. Breckinridge. The motion I made was to adjourn till Thursday. 

The Speaker. That motion is not in order. The question is now upon 
ordering the previous question. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Pending the previous question, I desire to move that 
when the House adjourns to-day it adjourn to meet on Thursday next. 

The Speaker. The Chair misunderstood the motion. The Chair understood 
it to be a motion to adjourn. The question is now on the demand for the previous 
question. (After a pause.) The ayes seem to have it. 

Here it will be seen that the Speaker distinctly acknowledged that he mis- 
understood Mr. Breckinridge, yet still refused to put his motion as he made it, and 
gagged the minority by putting the previous question. 

Thirteen days afterward, near the close of a day's session, Mr. Bland moved 
that the House adjourn. Mr. Hitt of Hlinois was seeking the floor. The Speaker 
put the question, and declared " The nays have it." Mr. Bland called for a division. 
The members rose and the Speaker counted them. He announced yeas, 61 ; nays, 
68. At this Mr. Bland questioned the count, saying, " Let us have tellers." The 
Record of January 21 shows what followed : 

The Speaker. The motion to adjourn is not agreed to. 

Mr. Bland. I demand tellers. 

The Speaker. There is no provision for tellers. The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Hlinois. 

Mr. Bland. I insist upon having tellers on my motion. 

The Speaker. The Chair knows of no provision for tellers. 

Mr. ]Bland. Then I demand the yeas and nays. 

The Speaker. It seems to be too late to demand the yeas and nays. 

Mr. Bland, We have been having tellers when demanded during the whole 
of the session. 



96 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The Speaker. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Illinois. 

Thus, in the face of his action on January 7 appointing tellers, on January 
20 he refused tellers on the demand of the same member, and upon top of that 
refused to recognize a demand f or the yeas"and nays, guaranteed by this clause of 
the Constitution: 

The yeas and nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, 
at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. 

On January 2, (see Record^ page 700) the following scene occurred : 

Mr. Bland. I demand tellers upon the motion. 

The Speaker. Upon what ground does the gentleman demand tellers ? 
Mr. Bland. Upon the general practice of the House and the ruling of the 
present Speaker heretofore. 

The Speaker. The Chair declines to order tellers. 

Thereupon Mr. Bland took an appeal. Mr. Cannon moved to table the appeal. 
Mr. Mills made the point of order that there was no rule of the House authorizing 
a motion to lay on the table, and no parliamentary warrant for such a motion in 
the absence of rules. The Speaker promptly overruled it. The appeal was tabled 
—149 to 137. 

III. -A Crowning Outrage. 

The crowning outrage came on January 29. No rules had been adopted to 
govern the House. Mr. Dalzell had called up a resolution reported from the Com- 
mittee on Elections, giving the seat of James M. Jackson, a Democratic Repre- 
sentative from West Virginia, to Charles B. Smith, his Republican opponent. Mr. 
Crisp, of Georgia, raised the question of consideration. Upon the division the 
vote stood — yeas, 136 ; nays, 124. Thereupon Mr. Crisp got tbe yeas and nays. 
Upon the call of the roll only two Democrats voted. The yeas were 161, and the 
nays 2 — thtee less than a quorum. Thereupon the Speaker, amid great confusion, 
named and counted enough Democrats to make a quorum, and announced that the 
House had agreed to consider the election case. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, denounced this action as revolutionary, and 
each Democrat protested as the Speaker named him. Mr. Outhwaite shouted, *' I 
was not present when my name was called, and the Chair is therefore stating what 
is not true." His name, however, went upon the list. Repeatedly Mr. Crisp 
shouted, *' I appeal from the decision of the Chair." 

The Speaker paid no attention to him. He refused to entertain any parliament- 
ary inquiries until he had named the Democrats present. Then he based his action 
upon the following clause of the Constitution : 

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of 
its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business. 

He argued his right to count a quorum in a set speech from the chair half an 
hour long. The practice of the House of Representatives for a hundred years was 
thus changed by the arbitrary action of the Speaker. How arbitrary that action 
was is indicated from the following letter : 

Washington, April 13, 1883. 
L. C. Collins, Speaker House of Representatwes, Springfield, 111. 

Members in their seats not voting can not be counted in any way whatever. 
They may be censured by the Speaker for failing to perform their duty, but the 
Speaker can not take cognizance of their presence except as they respond to the 
roll call. 

James G. Blaine. 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS. 97 

After ruling that there was a quorum present in the meaning of the Constitu- 
tion, the Speaker recognized Mr. Crisp of Georgia, who appealed from the decision 
of the Chair, and added : *' I desire to be heard on that appeal." 

After thus recognizing Mr. Crisp, the Speaker arbitrarily took him from the 
floor by recognizing Judge Payson, who moved to lay the appeal on the table, thus 
preventing criticism of the Speaker's action, as a motion to lay on the table cuts off 
debate. Mr. Crisp protested. He claimed that he had the floor and had a right to 
be heard. The Record^ page 917, discloses what followed : 

Mr. Crisp. I claim the right to be heard. 

The SPEAKiER. The motion of the gentleman from Illinois is one which he 
had a right to make, 

Mr. Crisp. Not while I am on the floor. 

The Speaker. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman for that purpose. 

This language is worth consideration. If a man is recognized he is certainly 
recognized for the matter which he chooses to present, if it is in order, and not 
for what the Speaker desires. 

Mr. Crisp. I submit that it is unfair, unjust, and unmanly to refuse us an 
opportunity to present our case. 

The Kepublican members apparently got their cue from the Speaker promptly, 
for Mr. Williams of Ohio immediately rose to a question of order. It was that 
the motion before the House was to lay the appeal on the table, and that discus- 
sion of that question was out of order. 

Mr. Bland shouted : " The Speaker argued his side of the case to the House, 
and we are refused the same privilege." 

The Becord shows what followed : 

Mr. Crisp. I appeal to your fairness as a man. G-entlemen (addressing the 
Republican side of the House), I appeal to your fairness as men to give us simply 
an opportunity to reply to the argument which the Speaker has seen proper to 
make. Are you afraid to hear the rulings that have been made in this House for 
a hundred years ? 

IV.— The Voice of I>aiitoii. 

The Speaker sat like a man of iron. His face was stern. He assuredly had 
the nerve to put the question without giving the minority a hearing. At that 
critical moment, however. Gen. Benjamin Butterworth came to the rescue. There 
was too much manhood in his composition to see the minority thus trampled 
under foot. He appealed to Judge Payson to withdraw his motion. Julius Caesar 
Burrows, of Michigan, showed that he sympathized with Gen. Butterworth. It 
looked as if there would be a revolt in the Republican ranks if the question was 
pressed without a hearing. The Speaker would not give way. Judge Payson 
reluctantly withdrew his motion. In the debate that followed an incident occur- 
red that showed the animus of the Speaker. The Record tells it thus : 

Mr. RowELL. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. Crisp. I will yield to my colleague. Certainly. 

Mr. RowELL. The question is, what special rule is demanded on the hearing 
of a contested election case, unless it be a rule to prevent its hearing? 

Mr. Crisp. My friend asks that I give the reason for raising the question of 
consideration. There are two or three reasons. One is, that in the history of the 
House of Representatives — 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Georgia should con- 
fine himself to the pending question. 

13 



98 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK, 

Mr. Crisp, I would ask if there is any rule wliich prohibits me from replying 
to rnj friend's question ? 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that the gentleman from Georgia does not 
question the opinion of the Chair in that regard. 

Mr. Crisp. I ask unanimous consent, if it is necessary to do so, in order to 
reply to the question. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks that the gentleman should go on and discuss 
the pending proposition. 

The reader must see that the Speaker allowed a Republican to ask a question 
and then debarred a Democrat from replying to it. He did not even put to the 
House his request for unanimous consent to reply to it. His action was so 
manifestly unfair that Major McKinley interfered in the interest of fair play. 

It occurs to me, said the Major, "that the gentleman from Georgia should be 
permitted to answer the question propounded to him by the gentleman from 
niinois." 

With McKinley in the lead, a Republican revolt was inevitable unless either 
the Speaker or Mr. Rowell gave way. Rowell saw the dilemma in which the 
Speaker was placed and withdrew the question. The Record shows that throughout 
the debate the Speaker confined the Democrats strictly to the question at issue 
and allowed Republican members the utmost latitude. 

v.— Some Extraordinary Rulings. 

At the end of the day the Speaker announced that he had yesterday pro- 
nounced Mr. Outhwaite as present and not voting by accident. It was a singular 
accident, but not so singular as some that have since occurred. In one case Mr. 
Foreman, who was in Illinois when the vote was taken, was counted to make a 
quorum. Repeated instances have occurred where members who were not in the 
House have been recorded in the journal as present and voting. 

The debate was continued on the following day. When the journal was read 
the names of those voting in the affirmative and in the negative on Crisp's 
question of consideration were there, but the names of the members who were 
counted by the Speaker to make up a quorum were left out. Mr. Breckinridge 
demanded the reading of the names of the members not voting. The Speaker 
replied : " That is not a part of the journal." 

He afterward qualified the remark by saying : " The list has been placed in 
the journal. There is no requirement that it should be put there, but the fact is 
that it is there, and the gentleman is entitled to have the whole journal read." 

If the Speaker's views are correct concerning this, he might count any num- 
ber of members as being present and not voting when they were absent, and there 
would be no record evidence of what he had done. It is apparent to everybody 
that when the journal is read, Representatives have not only a right, but it is their 
duty, to correct inaccuracies. Mr. Blanchard, of Louisiana, arose at this time for 
the purpose of correcting the journal. Despite his protests, the Speaker recog- 
nized Major McKinley, who instantly moved that the journal be approved, and 
demanded the previous question on his motion. This was granted. So the 
journal with its inaccuracies was approved, Mr. Blanchard vainly protesting. It 
was approved by again counting non-voting Democrats to make a quorum. Thus 
members were made to appear as certifying to a record which they did and could 
not on their oaths approve. In other words, they were counted to approve a, 
record which they declared to be false. 

While Major McKinley was talking Mr. Springer made a point of order. The 



SPEAKER reed's rules AND RULINGS. 99 

Speaker paid no attention to it. The Illinois Democrat was persistent. For 
two minutes he shouted at intervals of five seconds. "A point of order, Mr. 
Speaker." 

Leading Democrats called the Speaker's attention to him, With the apparent 
intention of stopping the clamor without recognizing Mr. Springer, the Speaker 
gave recognition to Gov. McCreery of Kentucky, who had risen to a parliamentary 
inquiry. The Governor said that the gentleman from Ohio took the floor for the 
purpose of debating the question, and the gentleman from Illinois had raised a point 
of order. He wanted to know whether it was not in order to raise a point of order 
at any time. 

This inquiry placed the Speaker in a bad predicament. The Record shows how 
he got out of it. 

The Speaker. But the gentleman from Illinois made the same point of order 
on which the Chair had already ruled. 

Mr. Springer. No, I have not made my point of order at all. I want an 
opportunity to make it. 

Mr. McCreery. I was sitting close by the gentleman, and did not hear him 
state his point of order. 

The Speaker. The Chair will hear the gentleman. 

Before Mr. Springer had fully elucidated his point of order, the Speaker 
said: "This is a question of recognition, and the Chair has recognized the gentle- 
man from Ohio, who has a right to proceed. 

Mr. Springer. I respectfully appeal. 

The Speaker. There can be no appeal on a question of recognition. 

Mr. Springer. This is not a question of recognition, it is a question of rul- 
ing. Does the Chair decline to entertain my appeal ? 

The Speaker. He does. 

VI.— Forced to Take the Back Track. 

After a long debate Major McKinley moved to table the appeal of Mr. Crisp 
on the assumption of the Chair to count absent Democrats to make a quorum. 

The appeal was laid on the table — yeas, 162; nays, none. The Speaker 
himself voted with the 162 to sustain his own decision. He still lacked three votes 
of a quorum on the yeas and nays. Thereupon he counted 27 non-voting Demo- 
crats and declared a quorum present. So the appeal was laid on the table by the 
vote of the Speaker and the use of the names of protesting Democrats. 

Mr. McMiLLiN desired his protest entered, but the Speaker refused to recog- 
nize him. Thereupon Major McKinley moved that the House adjourn. The 
Speaker put the question. Mr. Springer, Mr. Holman, and other Democrats 
demanded the yeas and nays, which they were entitled to by the express terms of 
the Constitution. The Speaker disregarded them and said : " The ayes have it, and 
the House stands adjourned accordingly till 12 o'clock to-morrow." 

He left his desk and had descended three steps when Mr. Springer rushed 
towards him and brusquely demanded the yeas and nays as a constitutional right. 
Many others were clamorous for the yeas and nays and indignant at the action of 
the Speaker. For the first time since the opening of Congress, Mr. Reed took the 
back track. His rancor had evidently made him too precipitate. He again 
ascended the dais, seized his gavel, brought the House to order, recognized Mr. 
Springer, and the yeas and nays were ordered. 

On the following day the same trouble occurred over the approval of the 
journal. The Democrats demanded its approval by a constitutional quorum, and 



100 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

were not -willing to sanction by their votes the illegal action of any preceding day. 
Gen. Forney, of Alabama, was recorded as voting, when absent by leave of the 
House on account of illness. The correction was made while the journal was 
being read. A similar correction on the previous day was refused after the journal 
was read and before the vote was taken. The instant the clerk ceased reading. 
Major McKinley moved that the journal be approved, and demanded the previous 
question upon the motion. Among the incidents that occurred afterward was the 
roUowing : 

The Speakek. The gentleman from Indiana. 

Mr. Bynum. Before a vote was taken on this question I arose and addressed 
the Chair, and made a motion to adjourn, which was a proper parliamentary 
motion. The Chair, in defiance of parliamentary law, in defiance of right and 
justice, in defiance — 

The Speaker. The gentleman will be in order. 

Mr. Bynum. The gentleman is in order. 

Mr. Bynum then made a speech so ringing in its denunciation of the Speak- 
er's tyranical rulings that it excited the attention of the nation. This speech led 
to his censure by the Republican majority months afterward. The pretext for 
the censure was found in remarks made in discussion during the tariff debate. 
The proof of this is found in a speech by the Republican member who moved the 
censure. 

VII— "Polite Forbearance." 

At the close of Mr. Bynum' s speech, the Speaker made another extraordinary 
ruling under *' general parliamentary law." The Record shows it thus : 

Mr. Springer. I move that the House do now adjourn. 

The Speaker. The Chair rules that motion to be not in order. 

Mr. Springer. From that ruling of the Chair I appeal. 

The Speaker. The Chair declines to entertain the appeal. 

Mr. Springer. Upon that ruling I desire to be heard. I again appeal from the 
decision of the Chair. 

The Speaker. The Chair will make a statement to the House. 

Mr. Springer. I insist upon my right to be heard. 

The Chair made its statement, and at its end decided to put the appeal to the 
House. As he did so Springer again shouted : " Upon that I desire to be heard." 

The Chair, however, took him from the floor by recognizing Major McKinley, 
who promptly moved to table the appeal. 

Mr. Springer. I have the floor. I demand the right to be heard. 

The Speaker. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. Springer. I demand that I shall be heard. 

The Speaker utterly ignored Mr. Springer's demand and ordered the clerk to 
call the roll. The clerk did so amid great confusion. In the confusion Mr. 
Springer shouted : " The Speaker, after recognizing me, has by unfair means 
taken the floor away from me. I have a right to be heard on this appeal from the 
decision of the Chair. I have never known a time when an appeal was taken from 
the decision of the Chair that the Chair refused to allow debate, if demanded. 
This proceeding is without any parliamentary right whatever, and I deny your 
right to gag the House. The Speaker can not proceed without my protest and 
without having his conduct called to the attention of the country." 

The appeal was tabled, the Speaker again counting non-voting Democrats in 
his effort to sustain himself. 

After the vote was announced Mr. Springer repeatedly moved that the House 
adjourn. Mr. Reed still ignored him. Finally he asked: "Does the Speaker 
decline to entertain that motion ?" 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS. 101 

The Speaker. The motion of the gentleman from Illinois is not entertained. 
Mr. Springer. When will it be in order for some one to move to adjourn. 
The Speaker. It will be in order at the proper time. 

Not long after this display of " polite forbearance," to use the Speaker's words, 
3Ir. Crisp raised the question of consideration. The Speaker declined to entertain it 

Mr. Crisp. Does the Chair decline to put my motion ? 

The Speaker. The Chair declines. 

Mr. Crisp. Then I appeal from that decision. 

The Speaker. The Chair declines to entertain the appeal. 

Mr. Crisp. Will the Chair give a reason for declining? 

The Speaker. There has been a distinct vote of the House sustaining the 
ruling of the Chair that motions made for purposes of delay are not in order. 

Mr. Crisp. I deny that you have a right to determine the purpose of my mo- 
tion. I appeal from your assumption to determine what my motives are. 

The Speaker ignored Mr. Crisp's protests and the House went on with the 
election case. 

Till.— McMinley Orowls Audibly. 

In the discussion that followed, Col. O'Ferrall of Virginia got the floor. The 
chamber was in utter confusion. Nobody was listening to him. It was after dark, 
and there was a general desire to adjourn. The Republicans tried to bargain for 
a vote before yielding to an adjournment. As they could not agree upon the terms 
the Colonel continued his speech. He took the volume containing the evidence 
in the case and began to read it. Some time afterward he sent it to the desk and 
asked the clerk to continue the reading. The following colloquy ensued : 

The Speaker. It cannot be read. 

Col. O'Ferrall. I ask that it be read as a part of my remarks. 
The Speaker. It cannot be read. 

Col. O'Ferrall. Send it back then, and allow me to read it myself. 
The Speaker. According to the rules now governing this House the gentle- 
man has not a right to read a printed book. 

Col. O'Ferrall. This is printed testimony. 

Nobody has learned what rule prevents a Representative from reading from a 
printed book in the course of his remarks. Certain it is that the Speaker himself, 
only two days before this, in giving his reasons for counting non-voting Demo- 
crats to make a quorum, had read page after page from a printed book. Col. 
O'Ferrall is a man of pluck. He persisted in reading the book in defiance of the 
order of the Speaker. The situation grew threatening. Again Major McKin- 
ley interfered. He came down to the arena in front of the Speaker's desk and 
said ; " I hope and trust that we will preserve order, and that the gentleman from 
Yirginia will be permitted to read the evidence he desires to read." 

The Speaker then gave way, and Col. O'Ferrell read until he was satisfied. 

On February 3, after a long day's work, the Record shows the following occur- 
rence : 

The Speaker. The Chair declines to entertain the motion to adjourn. 
Mr. Bynum. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 
The Speaker. The Chair declines to entertain the appeal. 

It was late at night when Judge Jackson was ousted from his seat and his 
Hepublican contestant sworn in. 

All these rulings were made before any rules to govern the House were 
adopted. 



102 s DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Then this concerning the rules and the Speaker's rulings 
under them, from the same : 

IX.— Any Rules Better Than No Rules. 

The extraordinary rulings of Speaker Reed under general parliamentary law, 
astounded the Democratic members. For the first time in the history of the 
House, a member was unseated before the adoption of rules. When this occurred 
it was evident that the Speaker would go to almost any extreme to aid his party 
in securing a good working majority of the House. He alone was the judge of 
what was general parliamentary law. The Becord shows that he stretched it like 
India rubber to accomplish party results, and closed his ears to the appeals of 
Democrats for fair play. Parliamentary law when a Republican had the floor was 
not parliamentary law when a Democrat had the floor. 

The rulings were so outrageous that General Butterworth, Major McKinley 
and Julius Caesar Burrows repeatedly pointed to the back track. The Democrats 
felt that there was no safety for them while the House was dependent upon the 
will of the Speaker alone. Mr. Carlisle thought that any rules, however harsh, 
would be better than no rules at all. If rules were adopted, the Speaker as well 
as the House would be bound by them. Without rules the House was wholly at 
the mercy of the Speaker. The necessity for the adoption of some rules was 
clearly shown during the dispute over the West Virginia contested election case. 

The reader will remember that in the discussion the Speaker ruled that 
under general parliamentary law Colonel O'Ferrall, of Virginia, had no right to 
read from a printed book. Major McKinley interfered and the Colonel continued 
Ms reading. He finally stopped and allowed the House to adjourn upon this 
express understanding, as shown in the Becord : 

Mr. OuTHWAiTE. I ask unanimous consent that this agreement be modified to 
this extent, that time for debate upon this side of the House shall be three hours, 
and upon the other side three hours, if they desire it, and that we shall adjourn 
upon that agreement. 

Mr. Dalzell (who was conducting the election case). I hope that agreement 
will be made. 

Colonel O'Ferrall. And that I have the floor. 

Mr. Dalzell. And that Mr. O'Ferrall has the floor. I ask unanimous consent 
to that agreement. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks unanimous consent 
that three hours shall be allowed on Monday upon the pending election case on one 
side, the gentleman from Virginia having the floor, and the same time, or not ex- 
ceeding the same time, to the other side of the House. Is there objection to the 
agreement ? 

Mr. Boutelle. I desire to ask if this unanimous consent is given whether it 
extends to all the proceedings of Monday or only to this. 

Mr. Dalzell. Not to extend outside of this case. 

Mr. Boutelle. And we are to get it up as we can? 

Mr. Dalzell. To take the chances. 

Mark the last two replies. Thereupon the House adjourned. 

All this occurred on Saturday, February 1. On Monday following the journal 
did not show the rulings of the Speaker in Colonel O'Ferrall' s case while reading from 
the printed book of evidence. Colonel O'Ferrall addressed the Chair the instant 
the clerk finished reading the journal. Major McKinley was a second or two 
behind him. The Chair recognized Major McKinley, who moved that the journal 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS. 103 

be approved, and said that lie would retain tlie floor for the purpose of calling the 
previous question if there was to he debate. Thereupon the following colloquy 
ensued : 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Mr. Speaker, I addressed the Chair first. 

The Speaker. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I observed that, but I think that the gentleman from Virginia 
addressed the Chair first. I desire to correct the journal. During the delivery of 
my remarks on Saturday I sent to the Clerk's desk to have read the record of the 
testimony in this case. The Chair ruled that it could not be read. I then asked 
that I might be permitted to read it as a part of my remarks. The Cliair again, 
ruled that I should not be permitted to read it as a part of my remarks. I desire 
that these rulings shall appear in the journal. 

The Speaker. The journal clerk informs the Chair that the matter did not 
appear in the form of a point of order so as to go into the journal, but the Chair 
thinks it should be made a part of the journal, and it will be put in formal shape 
and submitted to the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. I demand the previous question. 

Mr. Breckinridge of Kentucky. I would suggest that it would be better to 
suspend the motion to approve the journal till the journal can be written up, in 
accordance with the statement of the Speaker made to the gentleman from 
Virginia. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. The suggestion of the Speaker was quite satisfactory to the 
gentleman from Virginia, and I call for a vote. 

The Speaker. The previous question is demanded. The vote will now be 
taken upon ordering it. 

It was carried, yeas 154 ; nays 0. The Democrats refused to vote because the 
journal was not completed till the clerk had made the alterations suggested by 
the Speaker, and, if approved, it could not rightfully be altered afterward except 
by the House. The Speaker, however, again counted non-voting Democrats to 
make a quorum, and in the same way declared the journal approved before the 
alteration was made. 

As soon as the Speaker had counted enough non-voting Democrats to make a 
quorum and approved the journal, he said: "The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
O'Ferrall, has the floor," thus ordering up the election case in defiance of the terms 
of the agreement. If the reader turns back he will see that Mr. Dalzell, in reply 
to a question from Mr. Boutelle, agreed to take his chances in getting up the case. 
The Speaker, apparently, saw one of his chances. 

Mr. Crisp, of Georgia, thereupon said : " If the Speaker himself orders up the 
contested election case, it has not been called up. I raise the question of con- 
sideration on it." 

The Speaker. The Chair declines to entertain the motion. 

Mr. Crisp. Then I take an appeal. 

The Speaker. And the Chair declines to entertain the appeal 

Thereupon Col. O'Ferrall concluded his speech. 

X.— More "Polite Forbearance." 

There was more outrageous action on the part of the Speaker the following 
day, February 4. It occurred as soon as the journal was read. The Becord shows 
it thus : 

Mr. Sprikger. I desire to call the attention — 

Mr. McKiNLEY. I move that the journal of yesterday's session be approved— 

Mr. Springer. The clerk has not read all of yesterday's journal. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. And on that motion I call the previous question. 



104 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The Speaker, The gentleman from Ohio moves that the journal be approved, 
and on that motion calls the previous question. 

Mr. Springer. I desire to call the attention of the Speaker to the fact that 
the clerk has not read the whole journal, but has omitted a portion of it. 

The Speaker. As many as are in favor of the motion of the gentleman from 
Ohio for the previous question will say aye. (Those voting in the aflarmative 
responded.) 

Mr. Springer. I call for the reading of all the journal. Have I not that 
right ? 

The Speaker. As many as are opposed to the motion will say no. (Those 
voting in the negative responded.) The ayes seem to have it. 

Several Members. Yeas and nays. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Missouri calls for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. Springer. I have the right to have all of the journal read. 

The Speaker. As many as are in favor of ordering the yeas and nays will 
say aye. 

Mr. Springer. The clerk has not read half of the jo<irnal, and I can show it.. 

The Speaker. A sufficient number in the opinion of the chair. The yeas. 
and nays are ordered. 

Mr. Springer. You not only make this journal your own way, but you will 
not allow it to be read after it is made. 

Thereupon the clerk called the roU and the Speaker counted enough non- 
voting Democrats to approve the unread journal. 

Not long afterward the Speaker's " polite forbearance," as he terms it, was- 
again shown, Grov. McCreary of Kentucky moved that the House adjourn. The 
Speaker declined to entertain the motion. Thereupon Gov. McCreary rose to a 
parliamentary inquiry. He asked if a motion to adjourn was not in order then 
when it would be in order. The Becord shows the reply : 

The Speaker. The Chair desires to say, in response to the parliamentary 
inquiry of the gentleman from Kentucky, that ordinarily a motion to adjourn is 
in order when the changed situation of the House is such as to render it probable 
that the House desires to take that action. [Laughter on the Republican side.] 
But the proceedings to-day have been of the same character as those of preceding 
days, and it is evident to the Chair that these motions are used for the purposes, 
of obstruction and delay. That being the state of the case, and the ordinary time 
the House has indicated its pleasure to adjourn at not having arrived, the Chair 
feels it is carrying out the wishes of the House in making that ruling, [Applause 
on the Republican side of the House.] 

Let the reader bear in mind that the House was working under general par- 
liamentary law, and that no rules had been adopted concerning dilatory motions. 

This action of the Speaker stung Gov. McCreary. No gentleman likes to have 
his motives impugned. He rose to a question of personal privilege. The Speaker 
replied that this was not the time for a question of personal privilege. The fol- 
lowing scene occurred. 

Mr. McCreary. I made my motion in good faith. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Kentucky must preceive that is not a 
question of personal privilege. 

Mr. McCreary. I made my statement in response to the statement of th& 
Speaker impugning my motives. 

The Speaker. The ruling of the Chair is not a personal ruling. It is not 
personal to the gentleman from Kentucky. 

Mr. McCreary. The Chair imputed to me the making of a dilatory motion^ 
when such was not the case, for my motion to adjourn was made in good faith, 
because I believed under all the circumstances the House should adjourn. 

The Speaker. The pending question is on the demand of the gentleman 
from Ohio for the previous question. 

He put it to a vote and it was carried. 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS. 105 

XI.— Working Under tlie IXew Rules, 

New rules were reported to the House on February 7 and adopted on February 
14. Before their adoption, the Speaker had assumed, under what he called general 
parliamentary law, to make up a quorum by counting non-voting Democrats. 
When Judge Jackson, the Democratic member from West Yirginia, was put out of 
his seat, enough Republicans were present to make a quorum without counting non- 
voting Democrats. It was evident that the Speaker did not want to give Jackson 
an opportunity of going before the Supreme Court to test his right of counting 
non-voting Democrats to make a quorum under general parliamentary law. The 
new rules, however, gave the Speaker the right to make a quorum by counting non- 
TOting Democrats. When the second contested election case from West Yirginia 
came up under the new rules, the Republicans had no voting quorum. The Demo- 
crats refrained from voting, and the Speaker counted them thus : 

The Speaker. The following list of members reported to the Chair under 
Tule 13, clause 3, as present and not voting, will be read. 

The list was read, thereupon John O. Pendleton, a nephew of Geo. H. Pendle- 
ton, was unseated, and George W. Atkinson put in his place. If Pendleton made 
the contest in the courts he was compelled to tackle the right of the House to 
make its own rules, guaranteed to it by the Constitution. The Speaker exercised 
the power of counting a quorum continually in cases where his action could not 
1)6 revicAved, but in the only case where it could be reviewed, he found it not neces- 
sary to do so. 

The new rules worked without apparent friction till June 5. They were 
harsh in the extreme, but as long as the Speaker seemed to be bound by them the 
same as the members of the House, the Democrats made no complaint. On June 
5 the Silver bill was under discussion. Mr. Bland was a member of the Committee 
on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, which reported the bill. He had made the 
minority report against the bill. He was recognized as the leading opponent to 
it. Of course he desired to get in a free coinage amendment. The Speaker knew 
this, and took measures to checkmate him. This extract from the Record shows 
how it was done : 

Mr. McCoMAs (Rep. Maryland). Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer an amendment 
to the substitute. 

Mr. Bland (Dem. Missouri). I wish to offer an amendment. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized to offer an 
amendment, which will be read. 

Mr. Taylor (Rep. Illinois). I offer an amendment to the original bill. 

Mr. Bland. And I offer an amendment to the amendment. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized to offer an amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Bland. Mr. Speaker, I have risen to offer an amendment. 

The Speaker. The clerk will read the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
from Illinois. 

Mr. Bland. Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer an amendment. 

Mr, O'DoNNELL (Rep. Michigan). I offer a further amendment to the original 
hiU. 

The Speaker. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan will be read. 

Mr. Bland. I desire to offer a substitute for the two amendments. 

The Speaker. It will not be in order. 

Mr. CoNGOR (Rep. Iowa). Mr. Speaker — 

Mr, Bland. Mr. Speaker, when will it be in order — 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. 

14 



106 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Mr. Bland. I rise to a question of order. There have been two amendments 
offered to the original bill. I now desire to offer a substitute for the two. This 
is certainly in order. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr Bland. I want to know if it is not in order, under parliamentary" 
proceedings, to offer a substitute for these two. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Missouri is not in order. 

Mr. Bland. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. I certainly have a right to an 
answer. 

The Speaker. The Chair will examine that question when the amendment is 
offered. 

Mr, Bland, Then will the Chair recognize me to offer a substitute ? 

The Speaker. That is another matter altogether. 

Mr. Bland, the leader of the minority of the committee, was thus shut out by 
the " polite forbearance " of the Speaker. The bill was passed without affording 
him an opportunity to offer it. Messrs. McComas and O'Donnell, who were recog- 
nized by the Speaker, to Mr. Bland's exclusion, were not members of the com- 
mittee. 

Two days later Mr. Bland succeeded in getting a vote on free coinage in a 
round-about way. He was compelled to move that the bill be recommitted to the 
committee with instructions to report a bill for the free coinage of silver. 

XII.— The Speaker Rebuked. 

The country has not forgotten how the Senate amended the bill for providing 
for free coinage. The provision passed that body on June 17, and was sent over 
to the House on the following day. The amended bill was quietly sent by the 
clerk of the House, under the direction of the Speaker, to the Committee on Coin- 
age, Weights, and Measures. Clause 2 of rule 24, provides that House bills with 
Senate amendments, which do not require consideration in Committee of the 
Whole, may be at once disposed of as the House may direct. In all other cases 
they are to be referred by the Speaker as all other bills are referred. Upon the 
following day, when the clerk read the journal, he did not include the reference 
of bills. The Speaker said, as usual: "If there is no objection the journal, as, 
read, will be approved," 

The Democrats, however, were on the quimvie. A dozen of them had observed 
that the clerk had skipped the references. Mr. Mills promptly objected, and Mr. 
Breckinridge of Kentucky insisted that the journal should be read in full. This 
was done. The reading developed officially what had been done with the bill as 
it came from the Senate. After objecting, Mr. Mills kept the floor. When the 
clerk pronounced the reference of the Senate amendments to the Silver bill the 
following occurred : 

Mr. McKinley. Now, Mr. Speaker, I move the approval of the journal, and 
on that demand the previous question, 

Mr, Mills. But I have the floor to move a correction of the journal. 

The Speaker, The gentleman from Ohio submits a motion which is in order. 

Mr, Mills. I have the floor, and the gentleman from Ohio can not take 
possession of it without my consent. 

At this the clerk quietly told the Speaker that there were other references 
underneath the Senate Silver bill. They were read, and the Speaker then recog- 
nized Major McKinley, who repeated his motion. Mr. Mills protested, but the 
Speaker took the floor from him. The Democrats raised points of order, but the 
Speaker refused to entertain them. He crowded McKinley's demand for the pre- 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS. 107 

Tious question to a vote and got a setback. It was lost by 105 yeas to 117 nays. 
Then Mr. Mills got recognition anew. He offered a resolution striking from the 
journal the entry in reference to the Silver bill, upon the ground that the Speaker's 
reference of it was incorrect. This was done by a vote of the House. It was the 
first direct rebuff that the Speaker had received since the adoption of the new rules. 

XIII.— Rogers and Reed. 

Since the passage of the Silver bill, Mr. Rogers, of Arkansas, appears to have 
frequently been the victim o/ the Speaker's arbitrary rulings. He is the Repre- 
sentative whom the Speaker claims always to have treated with " polite forbear- 
ance." How polite the forbearance has been may be judged from an extract from, 
the Record of July 10. Mr. Hitt, of Illinois, had been speaking on a resolution of 
inquiry concerning matters in Behring Sea, reported back from the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs. At the conclusion of Mr. Hitt's remarks Mr. Rogers was 
recognized. The Record shows what followed : 

Mr. RoGEKS. Mr. Speaker, there seems a manifest impropriety in the adop- 
tion of this resolution. 

Mr. Hitt. Mr. Speaker, as I had the floor, I desire to ask the gentleman from. 
Arkansas how long he wishes to speak. I do not of course wish to be uncivil. 

Mr. Rogers. But the gentleman from Illinois will pardon me. He had taken, 
his seat, and the Speaker had recognized the gentleman from Arkansas. [Ark-an- 
sass, emphasizing the last syllable pointedly.] 

Mr. Hitt. If the Speaker has recognized the gentleman from Arkansas I 
have no objection to hear him. 

Mr. Cannon. I want to ask a question. 

Mr. Rogers. If the gentleman from Illinois will indicate how much time he 
wants, I will be glad to yield him some time. 

Mr. Cannon. About a minute. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois in charge of the bill has the floor. 

Mr. Rogers. The gentleman from Illinois has taken his seat. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois has the floor. 

Mr. Rogers. But I had been recognized. 

The Speaker. The Chair supposed the gentleman wished to ask a question. 

Mr. Rogers. Then I am glad the Chair has recognized the gentleman from 
Arkansas. I did not know that there was any acquaintance. 

Mr. Hitt. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a vote upon the resolution. 

The question was taken, and the resolution was adopted. 

From this it is fair to infer that the Speaker claims the right to take the floor 
from any member whom he has recognized, if that member does not speak to the 
subject which the Speaker thought he would. His own rules grant him no such 
latitude. 

Here is another specimen of the Speaker's polite forbearance toward the 
gentleman from Arkansas. It is taken from the Record of August 2. The Senate 
amendments to the Sundry Civil Appropriation bill were being considered. There 
was a dispute over the question of non-concurrence in a minor matter. An effort 
was made to group three little amendments so as to get a vote upon all three at once. 
The Record shows : 

The Speaker. If no one desires a division, the three can be voted on together. 
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard for a moment. 
Mr. Cannon. I hope there will be no debate, and I move the previous question. 
The Speaker. The question is upon non-concurrence in the amendments 
reported to the House. 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Speaker, can I be heard, or am I cut off ? 
The Speaker. The gentleman is cut off. [Laughter.] 



108 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Here again, after recognizing Mr. Rogers, the Speaker gave the floor to the 
Representative in charge of the bill, who moved the previous question. " Thia 
ruling," as was observed by a leading Democrat, " is absolutely brutal." 

XIV.— Clear Usurpation. 

Not long afterward Mr. Cannon moved the previous question upon an amend- 
ment. It gave rise to the following scene : 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Speaker— 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Cannon) moves the previous 
question on the amendment. 

Mr. Cannon. If the gentleman wants a few minutes, say five minutes, and 
we can then have a vote upon the balance of the amendments, I am content. 

Mr. Rogers. I am not asking for that. I am simply asking the Speaker of 
the House, when I have been recognized, and the floor is not occupied by the 
gentleman from Illinois, that the ordinary rule of parliamentary law which would 
apply to other members of the House shall with equal propriety be applied to me» 
And I say to the Speaker, with perfect propriety, that I submit as gracefully as I 
can to any ruling that he may make, but there is a time for straightening these 
matters out, and I will have it. 

Mr. Cannon. Yes, but I think I am in charge of this matter. 

The Speaker. The Chair does not understand to what the gentleman from 
Arkansas makes allusion. The Chair has endeavored to treat him with entire, 
politeness and respect, and has always done so. 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I have been recognized, and 
after being recognized have been taken from the floor by the Speaker. 

The Speaker. This is because when a gentleman rises the Chair does not 
know for what purpose he rises till he explains it, and it may be that under the 
customs — he doesn't say rules — of the House some other gentleman is entitled to the. 
floor under the circumstances. 

Mr. Rogers. I respectfully submit that when the floor is not occupied, and 
a gentleman rises and addresses the Chair and is recognized, it is none of the 
Chair's business what he is recognized for. 

The Speaker. The Chair respectfully states to the gentleman from Arkansas 
that it is the Chair's business as the Speaker of the House. 

Mr. Rogers. I agree that the Chair arrogates to himself that right, but I say 
that it is not a parliamentary right. 

The SpEAKEii, The Chair does not arrogate anything. 

Mr, Rogers. Then I will say that the Chair has usurped it. 

XV.— Polite Forbearance. 

Another scene, illustrative of the Speaker's polite forbearance, occurred on 
August 11. This scene occurred immediately after the reading of the journal, as 
shown by the Record : 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the journal. 

Mr. Cannon. I move the previous question on the approval of the journal. 

The Speaker. Without objection, the journal will be considered as approved. 

Mr. Rogers. I object. I want to correct the journal. 

Mr. Cannon. Then I will move the previous question on the approval of the 
journal. 

Mr. Rogers. I object to its approval. 

The Speaker. The House has a right to approve it as it stands. 

Mr. Rogers. I desire to correct the journal. I desire also to call attention 
to it. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Illinois moves that the journal be 
approved, and on that he asks for the previous question. 

Mr. Rogers. But I addressed the Chair first, and, by the rules of the House, 
I am entitled to be recognized. 

The Speaker. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Illinois. 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS- 109^ 

The question was put, and the Chair announced that the ayes seemed to have 
it. Mr. Rogers called for a division. To save time, Mr. Cannon said that he 
would yield him five or ten minutes to make a statement. Thereupon Mr. Rogers 
read from the Record, which disagreed with the journal. The Record showed that 
he appealed from the decision of the Chair on a point of order, and the journal 
showed that the appeal was on another point of order. Mr. Rogers stated the 
appeal thus : 

Mr. RoDGERS. The R^mrd Shows this : Mr. Enloe said, " I rise to a question 
of personal privilege." The Speaker said, " The gentlemen cannot interrupt the 
roll call." I said, " I make the point of order that the roll call has not begun." 

The Speaker. That is not a point of order. 

Mr. Rogers. Then the Chair overruled the order, and I appealed from the 
decision of the Chair, and that is what the journal ought to show. 

The Speaker. The Chair made disposition of the only point of order that 
was before the House, namely, as to the right of the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Mr. Enloe to present his question of privilege at that time. 

Mr. RoDGERS. I did not make that point of order, and I did not appeal from 
the decision of the Chair on that point. Now, the journal ought to show the fact, 
and the fact is that I did not appeal on any such question as that. 

The Speaker. The ultimate point of order was as to the right of the gentle- 
man from Tennessee to present the question of privilege at that time. 

Mr. Rogers. But I made no such point of order, and nobody else made that 
point of order. ^ 

The Speaker. Then there was no point of order made at all. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Rogers. Well, the journal ought to state the truth as to what occurred 
here. 

The Speaker. The Chair thinks the journal shows correctly what took 
place from a parliamentary point of view. 

Mr. Rogers. But it does not show what took place actually. Gentlemen 
will see that I did not appeal from the decision of the Chair upon the question of 
privilege made by the gentleman from Tennessee. Yet the journal states that I 
did, and in so stating states not the truth. 

Mr. Cannon. What else was there to appeal from ? 

Mr. Rogers. I appealed from the decision of the Chair overruling the point 
of order I had made. 

Mr. Cannon. The material, substantial question before the House was : Shall 
the gentleman from Tennessee be heard or shall the roll call proceed ? Nothing 
else could be before the House. 

Mr. Rogers. So you propose to make me appear as appealing from a thing I 
did not appeal from. Why not let the journal recite the truth ? 

The Speaker. It is within the knowledge of all members of the House that 
questions of this sort are raised, and gentlemen very often get up and say, " I make 
the further point of order," meaning " I make the further argument or further 
suggestion," which the Chair thought, and still thinks, was parliamentarily the 
position of the gentleman from Arkansas. 

Mr. Rogers. I did no such thing, and intended no such thing. I made the 
point of order that the roll call had begun on that morning, that other business had 
intervened since the day before, and the Chair disposed of my point of order in the 
way the Record shows. The Chair overruled my point of order, and from that I 
respectfully appealed. 

Mr. Cannon. I would be very glad if the gentleman would allow the journal 
to be approved. 

Mr. Rogers. I should be very glad to have the matter correctly shown in the 
journal. 

Mr. Cannon. If this question has got to come it may just as well come on 
ordering the previous question as by way of a motion to amend the journal. The 
gentleman, of course, will pursue his own course. He is of age. 

Mr. Rogers. I made my motion. If the gentleman wishes to cut me off, let 
It be done. It is the second time this thing has occurred during the session. 

Mr. Cannon. I do not want any friction, and I hope — 



110 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Mr, Rogers. I ask to correct tlie journal so as to make it speak the truth. 
You can take what course you please. 

Mr. Cannon. I move the previous question. The issue may just as well 
come on that. 

The Speaker put the previous question, and it was carried. The journal was 
again approved, though manifestly incorrect, by counting non-voting Democrats, 
who were thus again indirectly made to sanction the approval of a journal they 
knew to be incorrect. 

On the following day the Record shows this : 

Mr. Rogers. Will the gentleman from Illinois yield to me for a moment? 

Mr. Cannon. With pleasure. 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I rose and addresed the Chair 
to ask a correction of the journal. The Chair decided that the gentleman from 
Illinois rose first and therefore recognized him. The Record of this morning shows 
that I rose first and addressed the Chair, and that the gentleman from Illinois rose 
second. I suggest that a change ought to be made in the Record by transposing 
the chronological order of these addresses to the Chair so as to make it appear that 
the gentleman from Illinous rose and addressed the Chair first and I second. Or 
the Chair should make this change, if he does not make the other, that, "while the 
gentleman from Arkansas rose and addressed the Chair first, the gentleman from 
Illinois rose, addressed the Chair, and was recognized." Either change will, of 
course, contradict the fact as it actually exists, but it will relieve the Speaker from 
any inconsistency in the ruling as it was made at that time, as it is now made to 
appear by the Record. 

The Speaker. The Chair's attitude toward the gentleman from Arkansas has 
been consistent throughout — that of polite endurance of what it seems cannot be 
helped. [Applause and laughter on the Republican side.] 

XTI.— ]¥ot Bearing oat Mr. Randall. 

As far as Speaker Reed is concerned, it is plain that the Hon. Samuel J. Ran- 
dall was wrong when he said : "An aggressive man broadens when he becomes 
Speaker. He tries to be governed by a strict sense of duty, and would be more 
apt to protect a political opponent than to favor a friend by his rulings." 

It is also evident that Speaker Reed misunderstood himself when he said that 
he " hoped that his parliamentary duties would be performed with a proper sense 
of what was due to both sides of the chamber. 

It is equally evident that Mr. Carlisle was wrong when he remarked that " if 
rules were adopted, the Speaker as well as the House would be governed by them." 
He was evidently thinking of a Speaker who acted fairly, like himself or Mr. 
Randall. 

The domineering of the Speaker becomes irksome to the 
whole House; the assumption on the part of that officer of superior 
intelligence, patriotism and a higher regard for duty than is pos- 
sessed by members on the floor, becomes intolerable even to his 
own party friends, and occasionally they break out in public 
with something like honest indignation. In private there is no 
concealment of the disgust that he has inspired upon the part of 
a large proportion of the Republican members, but as he has the 
power to make them rue open rebellion, but few of them express 
publicly the feelings they really have and discuss in private. 

Mr. Struble, Republican, Iowa, however, stood his tyranny 
until forbearance ceased to be a virtue to his mind, and then 



SPEAKER reed's RUEES AND RULINGS. Ill 

broke out in violent denunciation of his school-master-like treat- 
ment of members. Even Mr. Struble greatly modified his re- 
marks before they went into print, but here they are as they 
appear on page 8544 of the Record. They were made in com- 
mittee of the whole : 

I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, and I wish the Speaker were present to hear me, 
that I think it is an outrage on the judgment of this House, on the judgment of 
the committee reporting these bills, that any one, be he Speaker or member, should 
assume to say to this House that any member or members who introduced these 
bills should not be recognized to ask or move favorable action of the House in 
respect of these bills, which are of such great interest to individual members intro- 
ducing them and the communities in which it is proposed to locate them. [Cries 
of '* Hear ! " *' Hear ! " on the Republican side.] 

Mr. Chairman, I have been a member of Congress for more than seven years. 
During that time I have labored earnestly to discharge my duties according to the 
responsibility resting upon me. I represent Sioux City, Iowa, a place of 39,000 
people by the pending census. For eight years the United States courts have been 
held there at the expense of the county. Twice during the Democratic adminis- 
tration the Speaker of this House recognized me, and twice a Democratic House, 
by unanimous consent, passed a bill providing for a public building in that city. 
It is true President Cleveland vetoed both of them. That was his responsibility 
and his duty, if he so regarded it. 

I want to say of Speaker Carlisle that during all of these years I never went 
to him with a request for recognition on the public building bills to which I have 
referred but what he received me with greatest kindness and courtesy and — with a 
pleasant expression if he could not do so then — said : "Mr. Struble, I will do the 
best I can for you. I cannot get you in just now, but will let you in as soon as I 
can ;" and he did let me in. I want to place in contrast with the gentlemanly and 
courteous action of that Speaker the action of the Speaker of this House, not only 
towards myself, but towards other members when we have gone to him courteously 
and gentlemanly, and asked him to recognize us to call up these public building 
bills. [Applause on the Democratic side.] If he has not absolutely sneered at some 
of us and ridiculed us he has come very near to doing so. 
*********** 

Not one of us poor mortals over here — as I feel justified in describing those 
of us concerned in these bills — has been able to get recognition to move the con- 
sideration of one of them, and we have been treated as if we were boys. [Laughter 
and applause on the Democratic side.] I, for one, do not propose to stand or sit in 
my place any longer under this sort of treatment without protest. [Applause on 
the Democratic side.] If the rest of you do, all right. 

But, gentlemen, here are thirty-five of us interested in these bills and there are 
more who are equally interested. Shall we continue to submit like cowards to the 
dictation of the Speaker of this House in respect to these matters ? [Laughter and 
applause on the Democratic side.] Or shall we be men of courage in our places 
and combine together in an honest attempt to have recognition at the hands of the 
Speaker ? Figuratively speaking, if not literally, the delicate feet of the Speaker 
of this House have been upon us for nearly sixty days and we have not been able 
to get out from under them. [Laughter and applause.] 



112 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Rulings in the Case of liangston ts. Tenable. 

The following is a transcript of the Record of the House 
proceedings September 18, omitting only the names of those 
voting and the announcement of pairs. 

The House met at 12 o'clock M. Prayer by Rev. J. H. Cuthbert, D. D. 

THE JOURNAL. 

The Speaker. The clerk will cause the journal- of yesterday's proceedings 
to be read. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I suggest that we ought to have a quorum. 

The Speaker. The clerk will read. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no quorum is present, and 
there ought to be a quorum for the transaction of business. 

The Speaker. If the gentleman suggests that there is no quorum present 
the Chair will, of^course, count to ascertain. [After a count.] There is not a 
quorum present. [A pause of about fifteen minutes, during which the Speaker 
directed the doorkeepers to notify members in the lobby that a quorum was de- 
sired in the House.] The clerk will now proceed with the reading of the* journal, 
a quorum being present. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Do I understand the Speaker to announce that there is a 
quorum present ? 

Mr. Speaker. There are 168 present. The clerk will proceed. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I ask whether the Speaker has announced that a quorum is 
present ? 

The Speaker. There are 168 members present. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I have this to say : I do not question the statement of the 
Speaker at all; but I think there are 50 members who will swear that there are 
not that number here. 

The Speaker. The gentlemen will not swear because there is no opportunity 
under the rules of the House. [Laughter.] 

The journal of yesterday's proceedings was then read. 

The Speaker. Without objection the journal will be considered as approved. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Mr. Speaker, I object, and call for a vote. 

The Speaker. The question is on the approval of the journal. 

The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes seemed to 
have it. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Division. 

The House divided; and there were — yeas 131, nays 10. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. No quorum present, Mr. Speaker. 

The Speaker (after having counted the House). One hundred and thirty 
members present. 

Mr. Kerr, of Iowa. I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 134, nays 0, not voting 191. 

The result of the vote Avas then announced as above recorded. 
Mr. Haugen. Is there a quorum present, Mr. Speaker? 
The Speaker. There is no quorum recorded. 



SPEAKER REED S RULES AND RULINGS. 



113 



Mr. Haugen, I move a call of the House. 

The question was taken ; and the Speaker announced that the ayes seemed to 
iave it. 

Mr. O'Ferrall demanded a division. 

The House divided ; and there were — yeas 113, nays 1, 

Accordingly a call of the House was ordered. 

The clerk proceeded to call the roll, when the following-named members failed 
to answer to their names : 



Abbott, 

Alderson, 

Allen, Mich. 

Allen, Miss. 

Anderson, Kans. 

Anderson, Miss. 

Atkinson, Pa. 

Banks, 

Barnes, 

Bayne, 

Belknap, 

Bergen, 

Biggs, 

Bingham, 

Bland, 

Bliss, 

Blount, 

Boatner, 

Boutelle, 

Breckinridge, 

Brewer, 

Brickner, 

Brookshii'e, 

Brewer, 

Brown, J. B. 

Browne, T. M. 

Brunner, 

Buchanan, N. J. 

Buchanan, Va. 

Buckalew, 

Bullock, 

Bunn, 

Burrows, 

Butterworth, 

Bynum, 

Campbell, 

Candler, Ga. 

Carlton, 

Carter, 

Caruth, 

Catchings, 

Chlpman, 

■Clancy, 

Clarke, Ala. 



Clements, 

Clunie, 

Connell, 

Cooper, Ind, 

Cothran, 

Culberson, Tex. 

Cutcheon, 

Dargan, 

Davidson, 

Dibble, 

Dickerson, 

Dockery, 

Dorsey, 

Bunphy, 

Edmunds, 

Elliott, 

Ellis, 

Enloe, 

Ewart, 

Finley, 

Flthian, 

Flood, 

Flower, 

Forman, 

Forney, 

Fowler, 

Gibson, 

Gifford, 

Goodnight. 

Greenhalge, 

Grimes, 

Grout, 

Hall, 

Hatch, 

Hayes, 

Haynes, 

Heard, 

Hemphill, 

Henderson, 111. 

Henderson, N. C. 

Herbert, 

Holman, 

Kerr, Pa. 

Ketcham, 



Knapp, 

Laidlaw, 

Lane, 

Lanham, 

Lawler, 

Lee, 

Lester, Ga. 

Lester, Va. 

Lind, 

Magner, 

Mansur, 

Martin, Ind. 

Martin, Tex. 

Mason, 

McAdoo, 

McClammy, 

McCord, 

McCormick, 

McKenna, 

McMJllin, 

Milliken, 

Mills, 

Montgomery, 

Moore, N. H. 

Moore, Tex. 

Morgan, 

O'Farrell, 

O'Neall, Ind. 

Outhwaite, 

Owens, Ohio. 

Paynter, 

Peel, 

Peri^y, 

Peters, 

Phelan, 

Pierce, 

Post, 

Ray, 

Reyburn, 

Richardson, 

Robertson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Seney, 



Shively. 

Simonds, 

Skinner, 

Snider, 

Spinola, 

Springer, 

Stahlneck, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stewart, Vt. 

Stivers, 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Stump, 

Sweney, 

Tarsney, 

Taylor, HI. 

Thompson, 

Tillman, 

Townsend, Pa. 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Kans. 

Turner, N. Y. 

Venable, 

Waddill, 

Wade, 

Wanace, N. Y. 

Washington, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whiting, 

Whitthorne, 

Wike, 

Willcox, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Mo. 

AVilson, Wash. 

Wright, 

Yoder. 



During the roll call the following members appeared at the clerk's desk and 
had their names recorded under the rule : 

Mr. Boatner, Mr. Boutelle, Mr. Bayne, Mr. Corthran, Mr. Dibble, Mr. Herbert, 
Mr. Belknap, Mr. Bliss, Mr. Burrows, Mr. Houk, Mr. Allen of Michigan, Mr. Allen 
of Mississippi, Mr. O'Ferrall, Mr, McMillin, Mr. Lester of Virginia, Mr. Clements, 
Mr. Hall, Mr. Lind, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Post, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Wallace of New 
York, Mr. Waddill, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Jason B. Brown, Mr. Owens of Ohio. 

Some time subsequently the following members appeared at the clerk's desk 
and had their names recorded under the rule : 

Mr. Simons, Mr. Carter, Mr. Wade, Mr. Wright, Mr. Taylor of Illinois, Mr. 
Thompson. 

The Speakee. The clerk reports 178 members present — a quorum. The clerk 
will call the roll. 

Mr. Crisp. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of order. I understand that a 
call of the House was ordered. The House is now in the call, and I make the point 
15 



114 DKMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

that there are only two motions in order when the House is in a call— either to 
adjourn or to dispense with further proceedings under the call. I understand the 
Speaker directed the clerk to call the roll on the motion to approve the journal. 

The Speaker. It can be done without objection. 

Mr. Crisp. Why, of course ; I object. It is unprecedented. Such a sugges- 
tion has never been made in the history of Congress. 

Mr. Haugen. I move to dispense with all further proceedings under the call. 

The Speaker. It is time such a suggestion was made. [Applause on the Re- 
publican side.] 

Mr. Crisp. That is the judgment of the Chair ; but the trouble is the Chair is 
not the master of this House, but the servant of the House, and must obey its 
orders. [Applause on the Demoratic side, and cries of "regular order!" on the 
Republican side.] 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia need not recommence. 

Mr. Crisp. Recommence ! The gentleman will respond that he will insist on 
his rights, and see that no tyrant takes them away from him. [Cries of " regular 
order !" on the Republican side.] 

Mr. Rowell. I make the point of order that the remarks of the gentleman 
from Georgia are out of order. 

Mr. Crisp. They are no more so than the remarks of the Speaker. ^ 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia will resume his seat. 

Mr. Crisp. Why, of course he will ; but he will rise and resent and reply to 
any intimation from the Chair or anywhere else. [Cries of " regular order !" on the 
Republican side.] 

The Speaker. The question is on dispensing with all further proceedings 
under the call. 

The question was put, and the Speaker announced that the " ayes " seemed to 
have it. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Division. 

The House divided ; and there were — yeas 142, nays 20. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. 

The question was taken on ordering the yeas and nays. 

The Speaker. (After counting.) Thirty gentlemen have arisen in support of 
the demand for the yeas and nays — not a sufficient number. 

Mr. McMiLLiN. The other side. 

The other side was counted. 

The Speaker. One hundred and thirty-three gentlemen have arisen in the 
negative — not a sufficient number, and the yeas and nays are refused. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Tellers, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Kerr, of Iowa. I make the point of order that it is too late. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Georgia asks for tellers. 

The question was taken; tellers were ordered, and Mr. O'Ferrall and Mr. 
Haugen were appointed tellers. 

The House again divided ; and the tellers reported — yeas 49, nays 115. 

So the yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 134, nays 38, not voting 153. 

The Speaker. On this question the yeas are 134, the nays 38. All further 
proceedings under the call are dispensed with, and the clerk will proceed to call 
the roll. 

The question was taken on the approval of the journal; and there were — yeas 
152, nays 5, not voting 168. 



SPEAKER REED'S RULES AND RULINGS. 



115 



The Speaker. The clerk will announce the names of the members noted as 
present and not voting. 

The clerk read as follows : 

Mr. Coggswell, Mr. Cooper of Ohio, Mr. Cothran, Mr. Crisp, Mr. De Haven, 
Mr. Hare, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Lind, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Gates, Mr. 
O'Ferrall, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Taylor of Illinois, Mr. IVade, Mr. Wiley, and the Speaker. 

The Speaker. On this question the yeas are 153 and the nays are 5 ; and the 
journal is approved. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. Haugek. Mr. Speaker, I suppose the contested-election case of Langston 
vs. Venable is now before the House, and in pursuance of the notice which I gave 
yesterday, that I would move the previous question at 2 o'clock to-day, I now make 
that motion. 

The question was taken ; and the Speaker declared that the yeas seemed to 
have it. 

Mr. Crisp. I ask for a division. 

The House divided ; and there were — yeas 98, nays 13. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. No quorum. 

Mr. Kerr, of Iowa. I call for the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken and there were — yeas, 135; nays, 10; not voting, 180. 

The Speaker. On this question the yeas are 135 and the nays are 10 ; no 
quorum. 

Mr. Haugen. I move a call of the House. 

The question was taken on ordering a call of the House, and the Speaker 
declared that the "yeas " seemed to have it. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I ask for a division. 

The House divided, and there were — yeas 88, nays 1. So a call of the House 
was ordered. 



Abbott, 

Alderson, 

Allen, Miss. 

Anderson, Miss. 

Andrew, 

Baker, 

Bankhead, 

Barnes, 

Barwig, 

Bayne, 

Belknap, 

Biggs, 

Bingham, 

Blanchard, 

Bland, 

Blount, 

Boatner, 

Breckinridge, 

Brickner, 

Brookshire, 

Brower, 

Brown, J. B. 

Browne, T. M. 

Brunner, 

Buchanan, N. J. 

Buchanan, Va. 

Buckalew, 

Bullock, 

Bunn, 

Butterworth, 

Bynum, 

Campbell, 

Candler, Qa,. 



Cothran, 

Covert, 

Cowles, 

Crain, 

Culberson, Tex. 

Culbertson, Pa. 

Cummings, 

Cutcheon, 

Dargan, 

Davidson, 

De Haven, 

Dibble, 

Dickerson, 

Dockery, 

Dorsey, 

Dunphy, 

Edmunds, 

Elliott, 

EUis, 

Enloe, 

Ewart, 

Featherston, 

Finley, 

Fitch, 

Fithian, - 

Flood, 

Forman, 

Forney, 

Fowler, 

Geissenhainer, 

Gibson, 

Gifford, 

Goodnight. 



Kerr, Pa. 

Ketcham, 

Kilgore, 

Knapp, 

Laidlaw, 

Lane, 

Lanham, 

Lansing, 

Lawler, 

Lee, 

Lester, Ga. 

Lester, Va. 

Lewis, 

Magner, 

Maish, 

Mansur, 

Martin, Ind. 

Martin, Tex. 

McAdoo, 

McCarthy, 

McClammy, 

McCord, 

McMillin, 

Milliken, 

Mills, 

Montgomery, 

Moore, N. H. 

Moore, Tex. 

Morgan, 

Mutchler, 

Norton, 

Gates, 

O'Neall, Ind. 



Richardson, 

Robertson, 

Rogers, 

'Rowland, 

Rusk, 

Sanford, 

Sayers, 

Seney, 

Skinner, 

Snider, 

Spinola, 

Springer, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stewart, Vt. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Stump, 

Sweney, 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Turner, Kans. 

Turner, N. Y. 

Vaux, 

Venable, 

Wade, 

Wallace, Mass. 

Washington, 



116 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Candler, Mass. 


Greenhalge, 


O'Neil, Mass. 


Wheeler, Ala. 


Carlton, 


Grimes, 


Outhwaite, 


Whiting, 


Caruth, 


Hall, 


Owen, Ind, 


Whitthorne, 


Catchings, 


Hare, 


Owens, Ohio. 


Wike, 


Chipman, 


Hatch, 


Paynter, 


Wiley, 


Clancy, 


Hayes, 


Peel, 


Willcox, 


Clarke, Ala. 


Haynes, 


Perry, 


Williams, Hi. 


Clements, 


Heard, 


Peters, 


Wilson, Ky. 


Clunie, 


Hemphill, 


Phelan, 


Wilson, Mo. 


Cobb, 


Henderson, N. C. 


Pierce, 


Wilson, W. Va. 


Connell, 


Herbert, 


Price, 


Yardley, 


Cooper, Ind, 


Hooker, 


Quinn, 


Yoder. 



The following members reported at the desk and were noted as present under 
the rule: 

Mr. Bayne, Mr. Belknap, Mr. Baker, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Hall and Mr. Lansing. 

The Speaker. The clerk reports 151. members present — not a quorum. 

Mr. Haugen. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to, and the House accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 5 min- 
utes p. m.) adjourned. 

It will not escape attention that the absence of a quorum 
was due primarily to the failure of Republican members to 
remain at the seat of government to perform their duties as 
Representatives. They are at home making political speeches 
and trying to persuade the people to afford them another oppor- 
tunity to neglect the business entrusted to them. Secondarily 
the lack of a quorum was due to the absence of Democratic 
members, who refused to present themselves to be counted 
to unseat a duly elected member, and in his place seat a man 
who at the polls received 641 fewer votes than the man whose 
seat the Republicans coveted. 

In the last Congress the Republicans, by refusing to parti- 
cipate in the business of the House, held off the contested case 
of Sullivan vs. Felton throughout both sessions, and Congress 
adjourned without considering the case at all, thus permitting 
the contestee, though his non-election was established by proper 
evidence, to retain his seat. There is a great howl now when 
the Democrats refuse to allow themselves to be used to supply 
the places of absent Republicans in order to enable the House to 
commit an outrage on the ballot-box. 

During these proceedings Mr. Reed ordered the door-keepers 
to fasten the doors and imprison the members in the hall of the 
House, without even the semblance of authority to act as jailer. 
Two or three members, one of them a Republican, having imper- 
ative business in other parts of the Capitol, forced their way 
through the doors and thus asserted their liberty. 

The next day, September 19, the revolutionists found them- 
selves confronted by the same condition of affairs, and the 
Speaker attempted to obviate the necessity of sending for the 
absentee Republicans by ruling that less than a majority of the 
House constitute a quorum. 

This House is composed of 330 members. A majority, con- 
stituting a quorum to do business is 166. Three members who 
were elected have recently died and one, Mr. Breckinridge, has 
been robbed of his seat, which is vacant. The Speaker therefore 



SPEAKER reed's RULES AND RULINGS. 117 

held, three or four times on this day, that a majority was 164, and 
attempted to cite decisions of Speaker Randall to sustain himself. 
He failed, however, to find any such decision for the simple 
reason that none such was ever made by Speaker Randall. 
Gushing, the highest American authority on parliamentary law, 
says : 

When the number, of which an assembly may consist at any given time, is- 
fixed by constitution, and an aliquot proportion of such ascembl}'- is required in 
order to constitute a quorum, the number of which such assembly may consist, and 
not the number of which it does in fact consist, at the time in question, is the 
number of the assembly, and the number necessary to constitute a quorum is to be 
recorded accordingly. Thus, in the Senate of the United States, to which by the 
Constitution each State in the Union maj^ elect two members, and which may con- 
sequently consist of two members from each State the quorum is the majority of 
that number, whether the States have all exercised their Constitutional right or not. 

So, in the second branch of Congress, in which, by the Constitution, the whole 
number of Representatives of which the House may consist is fixed by the last 
apportionment, increased by the number of members to which newiy- admitted 
States may be entitled, the quorum is a majority of the whole number, including the 
number to which such new States may be entitled, whether they have elected 
members or not, and making no deductions on account of vacant districts. 

And that has been decided by every Speaker that ever sat 
in the chair in the House until Mr. Reed's time. 

The very most that has ever been claimed is that a quorum con- 
sists of a majority of the members actually elected to the House^ 
and this was decided July 19, 1861, by Speaker Galusha A. Grow, 
when the war was in progress and some of the States had failed 
to elect Representatives. 

This decision has always been questioned, and has been 
assented to only on the theory that it was prompted by the- 
direst necessity. 

Speaker Reed also, during the day, repeatedly counted those 
present and announced that there were more than a quorum of 
166 members present, but when tellers were ordered to verify his 
count, it was ascertained that he had followed Skakespear's- 
injunction : 

Get thee glass eyes ; 
And like a scurvy politician, seem 
To see the things thou dost not. 

Finally the Speaker reluctantly overruled the decisions he 
had made earlier in the day, and announced that he would 
** adhere, for the present, to the rule that 166 members consti- 
tute a quorum," but he said in the course of his announcement 
that '^he should not feel that the opinion which he now states- 
was one to which he would be obliged to adhere." 

Indeed, Mr. Reed is ''obliged to adhere" to nothing in his 
rulings, unless to the rule that the minority has no rights under 
the Constitution that the Speaker is bound to respect. He has 
already adopted a rule making 100 a quorum in committee of the 



118 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

whole, and the country need not be startled if he makes that, 
or a smaller number, a quorum in the House itself, the Consti- 
tution to the contrary notwithstanding. 

It is the constant practice of the Speaker in counting a 
quorum to wait, when there is not a quorum present when 
the vote is taken, until enough members come in from the cloak 
rooms and corridors to complete the quorum, and then count 
them as though they had helped to '' constitute a quorum to do 
business " when the business was done. Thus the affirmative 
vote of one man, even on a call of the yeas and nays, will suffice 
to enact any measure, provided that some time before the Speaker 
announces the result of the vote, enough other members to consti- 
tute a quorum pass through the hall of the House and are counted; 
and, under the practice of withholding the announcement until 
he chooses to make it, members subsequently coming in could 
be, and probably are, counted to accomplish purposes of which 
they are in entire ignorance ; to validate a vote that they need 
not even know has ever been taken, and on a proposition of 
which they have never heard. Should the Speaker by any 
chance ever find himself so situated as to be the only member 
present, he could have his own name called by the clerk and 
vote to pass any measure, and then count members whenever 
they might come in to complete the quorum. 

The new code of rules is based on the assumption that the 
329 members on the floor are less competent and less conscien- 
tious than the one member in the chair, but unless this assump- 
tion is justified by something that has not yet appeared in the 
conduct of these component parts of the House respectively, the 
power vested in the Speaker is a very dangerous and wholly 
unnecessary one, to say the least of it. 



NKW STATKS. 119 



NEW STATES. 



REPUBLICAN TERRITORIES ADMITTED; DEMOCRATIC 

TERRITORIES EXCLUDED-MORMONISM 

AND WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE. 



Six Republican States; Two Democratic Territories. 

The House of Representatives in the Fiftieth Congress was 
Democratic. It passed the bills to admit to the Union the four 
Territories, North and South Dakota, Washington and Mon- 
tana, the first three of which were known to be Republican and 
the last one of which was doubtful and has since been stolen 
outright, so far as its two Senators are concerned, by the Repub- 
lican party. 

Besides the Indian Territory, in no way entitled to admis- 
sion and not seeking to come in, there were left five Territories, 
Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. 

The present Congress has admitted Idaho and Wyoming, but 
has refused to admit Arizona and New Mexico. 

There has been no attempt to admit Utah, by either the 
Democratic or the Republican Congress. 

The Constitution of Idaho and the Constitution of Wyoming 
contain each at least one peculiar provision. That of Idaho 
disfranchises all members of the Mormon Church and all who 
in any way contribute to the support of the church, whatever 
their individual beliefs and practices may be, whether they are 
monogamists or polygamists. There was some opposition to this 
provision by members who thought it contrary to the spirit 
of our free institutions, but there was substantially no oppo- 
sition to the admission of the Territory. 

The Constitution of Wyoming confers the elective franchise 
upon women, and this, too, met with some opposition, which, 
however, did not extend to the admission of the Territory. 

These two singular provisions throw some light on some 
singular proceedings. The Republican party has gone into a 
fierce rivalry with the Democrats in denouncing polygamy, and 
when the admission of Idaho was under discussion nothing too 
severe could be said against it, and no measure of disfranchise- 
ment was too radical to be applied to it ; but when Wyoming 



120 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

knocked at the door, the door was thrown open and no questions 
were asked. 

Now there are Mormons and Mormons, and there are polyg- 
amists and polygamists — some Mormons are polygamist and 
some are not — but Wyoming and Idaho are infested with both 
classes, but in Idaho, the males, who alone were ever allowed to 
vote, voted the Democratic ticket, while in Wyoming, where 
both sexes vote, the males vote the Republican ticket and take 
their myriads of wives to the polls and, by a delightful conju- 
gal influence, make them do the same. Result : Idaho and 
Wyoming are both Republican States and are admitted to the 
Union, whereas if they had constitutions like other States they 
would be both Democratic, and this Congress would not have 
admitted them. By this enfranchisement of Republicans and 
disfranchisement of Democrats the Republican party will prob- 
ably get four more Senators and two more Representatives with 
a coresponding increase of strength in the Electoral College. 

In consequence of the fact that the constitutional conven- 
tion in Idaho assembled pursuant to a proclamation of the gov- 
ernor, issued without authority of law, and that the Constitution 
was adopted at an election held likewise without legal author- 
ization, and at which any person who could get his vote in the 
box, whether a resident of Idaho or a denizen of the polar 
regions, could vote without incurring a penalty for casting an 
illegal .ballot, the Democrats insisted that the v/hole subject 
should be remitted to the people of Idaho for legal and proper 
action ; and they offered an amendment to the Idaho bill provid- 
ing for such proceedings. 

The amendment provided for the application of the Tucker- 
Edmunds act to the proceedings to be had under authority of 
law, and also the Edmunds law of 1882, which disfranchises all 
persons guilty of the practice of polygamy or illegal cohabita- 
tion, but which says in a proviso to the ninth section: 

Said board shall not exclude any person, otherwise eligible to vote, from the polls 
on account of any opinion such person may entertain on the subject of bigamy or 
polygamy, nor shall they refuse to count any such vote on account of the opinion 
of the person casting it on the subject of bigamy or polygamy. 

The position of the Democrats is thus explained by Hon. W. 
M. Springer, of Illinois, in his speech on the Idaho bill : 

In 1887, on the 3d of March, Congress passed what is known as the Tucker- 
Edmunds act in which was prescribed the oath to which I have alreadj^ called 
attention. Therein the voter was required to swear that he would obey this act 
•" in respect to the crimes by said act defined " and that he would not aid or abet, 
counsel or advise any other person to commit any of said crimes. That is the oath 
prescribed by this amendment, and the distinction between the oath prescribed in 
the amendment submitted by the minority of the committee and the provision of 
the Idaho constitution is this : By the Tucker-Edmunds act this oath which we 
have made applicable to future elections in the Territory relates to acts committed 
^nd not to opinions ; while under the Idaho constitution, as avowed by its friends 



NEW STATES. 



121 



and supporters upon tliis floor, every person who belongs to tlie Mormon Church,, 
every person whether he belongs to that church or not, if he contributes to its sup- 
port, is excluded from voting. He may be a Gentile, but if he contributes to the 
support of that church in any way, even by dropping a nickel in the contribution 
box, he is disfranchised. 

This proposition, as already indicated, did not prevail. 

The process of disfranchisement, however, did not stop here. 
It was extended by an outrageous gerrymander, as is evidenced 
by the following, also from Mr. Springer's speech : 

The following is the official vote of Idaho by counties, taken from Spofford's 
Almanac of 1889, page 308 (the county of Alturas has, since November, 1888, been 
divided into three counties, as stated below) : 

Idaho. — Official Vote for Delegate^ November^ 1888. 



Counties. 



Dubois, 


Hawiey, 


(Repub- 


(Demo- 


lican.) 


crat.) 


1,008 


661 


(• 1,613 


1,133 


83 


533 


781 


635 


478 


371 


201 


213 


563 


234 


255 


365 


269 


378 


341 


237 


494 


269 


49 


155 


253 


87 


301 


171 


1,833 


737 


433 


336 


8,151 


6,404 



Buck, (In- 
depend- 
ent.) 



Ada 

Alturas 

Logan 

Elmore 

Bear Lake.. 
Bingbam.... 

Boise 

Cassia 

Custer 

Idaho 

Kootenai... 

Latah 

Lemhi 

Nez Perces. 

Oneida 

Owyhee 

Shoshone — 
Washington 

Totals. 



58 
66- 
864 



431 



1,458 



The following is the population of the Territory of Idaho, 1889, as estimated 
in the report of the governor to the Secretary of the Interior : 

Population of Idaho, 1889. 



COUNTIES. 



Ada 

Alturas . . . 
Bear Lake 
Bingham.. 

Boise 

Cassia 

Custer — 
Elmore.... 

Idaho 

Kootenai . 



Popu- 
lation. 



11,275 

3,300 
5,900 
14,773 

4,900 
4,500 
4,900 
4,500 
2,879 
2,500 



COUNTIES. 



Latah 

Lemhi 

Logan 

Nez Perces.. 

Oneida 

Owyhee 

Shoshone — 
Washington 

Total... 



Popu- 
lation. 



11.350 
5,500 
6,300 

5,200 
6,900 
4,000 
9,500 
5,700 

113,777 



The following is the provision of the Idaho constitution under which the first 
Legislature is to be elected, and subsequent Legislatures until otherwise provided: 



16 



122 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

ARTICLE XIX. 

Apportionment. 

Section 1. — Until otherwise provided by law, the apportionment of the two 
houses of the Legislature shall be as follows : 

The first senatorial district shall consist of the county of Shoshone, and shall 
elect two senators. 

The second shall consist of the counties of Kootenai and Latah, and shall elect 
one senator. 

The third shall consist of the counti^ f>i Nez Perces and Idaho, and shall 
elect one senator. 

The fourth shall consist of the counties of Nez Perces and Latah, and shall 
€lect one senator. 

The fifth shall consist of the county of Latah, and shall elect one senator. 

The sixth shall consist of the county of Boise, and shall elect one senator. 

The seventh shall consist of the county of Custer, and shall elect one senator. 

The eighth shall consist of the county of Lemhi, and shall elect one senator. 

The ninth shall consist of the county of Logan, and shall elect one senator. 

The tenth shall consist of the county of Bingham, and shall elect one senator. 

The eleventh shall consist of the counties of Bear Lake, Oneida and Bingham, 
and shall elect one senator. 

The twelfth shall consist of the counties of Owyhee and Cassia, and shall elect 
one senator. 

The thirteenth shall consist of the county of Elmore, and shall elect one 
senator. 

The fourteenth shall consist of the county of Alturas, and shall elect one 
senator. 

The fifteenth shall consist of the county of Ada, and shall elect two senators. 

The sixteenth shall consist of the county of Washington, and shall elect one 
senator. 

Sec 2. The several counties shall elect the following members of the house of 
representatives : 

The county of Ada, three members. 

The counties of Ada and Elmore, one member. 

The county of Alturas, two members. 

The county of Boise, two members. 

The county of Bear Lake, one member. 

The county of Bingham, three members. 

The county of Cassia, one member. 

The county of Custer, two members. 

The county of Elmore, one member. 

The county of Idaho, one member. 

The counties of Idaho and Nez Perces, one member. 

The county of Kootenai, one member. 

The county of Latah, two members. 

The counties of Kootenai and Latah, one member. 

The county of Logan, two members. 

The county of Lemhi, two members. 

The county of Nez Perces, one member. 

The county of Oneida, one member. 

The county of Owyhee, one member. 

The county of Shoshone, four members. 

The county of Washington, two members. 

The counties of Bingham, Logan and Alturas, one member. 

In this constitution the Republican leaders have so gerrymandered the districts 
for the Senate and House of Representatives of Idaho as to perpetuate the power 
of the Republican party in that State indefinitely. I will show how this is done. 
According to this apportionment, based upon the vote for Delegate in 1888, which 
I will print in the Record, the Senate of Idaho at its first session will consist of 15 



NEW STATES. 



123 



Republicans and 3 Democrats. That is the State Senate. I will print in the Record 
the representation of each county under this apportionment, both for the Senate 
and House of Representatives : 

Senate of Idaho as it will stand at tJie first election under the Constitution, according to 
the wte for Delegate in 1888. 



Districts. 


Counties. 


Repub- 
lican. 


Demo- 
cratic. 


First 




3 
1 




Second 


Kootenai and Latah 




Third 


Npz T*prf*fts! fl.nri Tfifl.hn. . 


1 


Fourth 






*1 


Fifth 


Latah 






Sixth 


Boise 










Eighth 


Lemhi 




Ninth 






Tenth 






Eleventh 




1 


Twelfth 


Owyhee and Cassia 


3 
1 




Thirteenth . 


Elmore • ■ • 










Fifteenth 


Ada 




Sixteenth 


Washington., , ,,,,,,,,.,,,, i 










15 


3 



*By 3 majority— 864 votes were cast for Buck in Latah. This district is therefore 
doubtful. 



House of Representatives. 



Districts. 


Counties. 


Repub- 
lican. 


Demo- 
cratic. 


First 


Ada 


3 
1 

3 
3 










Third 






Fourth 


Boise 




Fifth 


Bear Lake 


1 


Sixth 


Bingham 


3 




SpTTPTI ■Ml 


Cassia 


1 


Eighth 




3 
1 




Ninth 


Elmore 




Tenth 


Idaho 


1 


Eleventh » 


Idaho and Nez Perces 




1 


Twelfth 






1 


Thirteenth 


Latah 


3 
1 
3 
3 
1 
1 
1 
4 
3 
1 








Fifteenth 


Logan 




Sixteenth . . 


Lemhi 










Eighteenth 


Oneida 




^ i n pt;ppn f.Tn . . ... 


Owvhee ......... . .... 










Twentv-flrst 


AVashington 












Total house 






31 
15 


5 




Total senate ...<<,..,..> 


3 




Total on 1oint ballot 






46 


8 









The House of Representatives, under this apportionment based upon the vote 
for delegates in 1888, will consist, as will be seen, of 31 Republicans and 5 Demo- 
crats. On joint ballot the Republicans will have 46 members and the Democrats 8. 

Mr. Struble. Does not that result from the scarcity of Democrats, rather 
than from any inequality in the arrangement of the districts ? 



124 BEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Mr. SpRiNGEiR. Ko, sir ; it results from the ingenuity with which this ap- 
portionment has been drawn. See how cunningly these districts have been divided. 
It is provided, for instance, that in the second senatorial district the counties of 
Kootenai and Latah shall elect one senator. The fourth district consists of the 
counties of Nez Perces and Latah ; the fifth consists of the county of Latah by 
itself. All through, as will be seen, these counties are interwoven with each other, 
dovetailed together, so as to make them almost unanimously Republican. 

Let me call attention to another fact. It will require 1,280 Democrats to 
secure one member of th€ House of Representatives in Idaho under this constitu- 
tion and 2,168 Democrats to elect one senator; while 263 Republicans will be able 
to elect one representative and 543 to elect one senator. There were 8,151 votes 
cast for the Republican candidate for delegate in 1888 and 6,404 votes for the 
Democratic candidate. The 8,151 Republican votes will be represented in the 
Senate by fifteen senators, one senator for every 543 Republican votes; and every 
263 Republican votes will be represented by one representative. 

But the 6,404 votes will be represented by only three senators and five repre- 
sentatives; that is, it will require 2,168 Democrats to elect one senator and 1,280 
Democrats to elect one representative. In other words, in the election of State 
senators 543 Republicans will equal 2,168 Democrats, and in the election of mem- 
l)evs of the lower house of the Legislature 263 Republicans will equal 1,280 Demo- 
crats, or in constituting the Senate of Idaho one Republican equals four Demo- 
crats, and in tbe House of Representatives one Republican equals nearly five 
Democrats. 

I will give some example to show how this was brought about. The gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Struble] suggests that it was the scarcity of Democrats. The fig- 
ures do not support that assertion. In Shoshone county, which is Republican, with 
a population of 9,500, four members are allowed by this apportionment in the House 
of Representatives. In Democratic Bear Lake, with 5,900 population, only one 
member is allowed. In Democratic Cassia, with a population of 4,500, only one 
member is allowed, or two members for a Democratic population of 10,400, while 
Shoshone county with 9,500, or 900 less, has four representatives in the Legislature. 
That was not due to scarcity of Democrats but to a plentiful supply of Republican 
ingenuity and gerrymandering skill. And in Republican Custer, with a population 
of 4,900, two members are allowed, while in Democratic Bear Lake, with 5,900, only 
one member is allowed. Although Bear Lake has a thousand more population than 
Republican Custer it has only one representative in the Legislature. Republican 
Lemhi, with a population of 5,500, has two members. It has a population of 400 
less than Democratic Bear Lake, and yet it has one representative more in the 
Legislature. 

Thus we see by the ingenuity of the Republican bosses who formulated this 
constitution they have not only suppressed votes of 4,500 Mormons, who it is alleged 
would vote the Democratic ticket, but they have suppressed by a constitutional 
gerrymander more than half the Democratic party of the territory Avho are Gen- 
tiles and were never even suspected of being in sympathy with Mormons. 

Wyoming. 

Mr. Springer continues : 

But this gerrymandering conspiracy is not confined to Idaho alone. Since 
this bill for the admission of Idaho has been under consideration I liave taken 
occasion to examine the provisions of the bill as to the apportionment in Wyoming, 



NEW STATKS, 



125 



for the reason that remarkable features of this Idaho apportionment induced me to 
•examine that of Wyoming also to see whether the same line of policy had been 
pursued there. I have gone over the "Wyoming apportionment and find that the 
Wyoming apportionment is a part of the same scheme. In Wyoming the State 
senate, under the constitutional apportionment, will contain 14 Republican senators 
^nd 2 Democrats ; the House of Representatives will contain 29 Republicans and 
4 Democrats, or 43 Republicans on joint ballot and 6 Democrats. So much for 
Wyoming. 

Mr. Washington. Why did they not take them all ? [Laughter.] 
Mr. Springer. Why did not they take them all, my friend says. Well, they 
might as well have done so. That reminds me of an incident that occurred in 
Crook county in the so-called election in Wyoming for the constitution, where 
three men were committing fraud on the ballot-box, which in that case was in a 
<;igar-box, and had put in three hundred votes in favor of the constitution, when 
one remarked that he was getting tired all the time voting for one man, and he 
^vas going to put in a few votes "for the other fellow," and then voted seven 
against the constitution. It was thought in this case, I suppose, that it would be 
too plain and palpable to deny any Democrat a right to a seat, so four were allowed 
to slip in. 
*********** 

I will give the facts. The following is the oflBcial result of the election for 
■delegates in Wyoming, November, 1888, taken from the Albany Evening Journal 
Almanac for 1889 : 



Wyoming. — Official Vote for Delegate, November, 1888. 



ComifTIES. 


Carey, 
Kepublican. 


Organ,. 
Democra;t. 


-AlbanV' • t • • • « 


1.584 

1,701 

696 

650 

460 

362 

1.928 

480 

1,153 

],43T 




1,024 
932 




■Convsrse • 


610 


Orook « 


500 




586 


.TnTi n sjon 


•554 


T.pmmlp 


1767 




390 


fi-txrpp-hwa.tlPT' ■ 


594 


Uinta 


600 








Total 


10,451 




7 557 









The following is the legislative apportionment contained in the Wyoming 
constitution : 

Sec. 4. Until an apportionment of senators and representatives, as otherwise 
provided by law, they shall be divided among the several counties of the State in 
the following manner : 

Albany county, two senators and five representatives. 

Carbon county, two senators and five representatives. 

Converse county, one senator and three representatives. 

Crook county, one senator and two representatives. 

T'remont county, one senator and two representatives. 

Laramie county, three senators and six representatives. 

Johnson county, one senator and two representatives. 

Sheridan county, one senator and two representatives. 

Sweetwater county, two senators and three representatives. 

Uinta county, two senators and three representatives. 



126 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



I have been unable to procure a statement of the estimated population of 
Wyoming at this time by counties, nor have I been able to procure a statement of 
the vote by counties on the ratification of the constitution. 

Under this apportionment based upon the vote of 1888, the Senate and House 
of Representatives of Wyoming will be constituted as follows at the first Legisla- 
ture. 



Apportionment of Senate and H§use of Representatives 


of Wyoming. 




Counties. 


Senate. 


House. 




Rep. 


Dem. 


Rep. 


Dem. 


Albany • • • • • • > > kh ■•..■> i •<...., . 


2 

2 

1 
1 


i" 

i" 


5 
5 
3 

2 

e" 

2" 

3 
3 




Carbon 




Converse 




Crook 




Fremont 


3 


Laramie 

.Toll n 'icvn . 


3 


3 




1 
2 

2 




Sweetwater 




Uinta 








Total • 


14 


2 


29 


4 







Or, on joint ballot, 43 Republicans and 6 Democrats. 

I base my calculation on the figures of the vote given at the election in 1888, 
when the Delegate from Wyoming [Mr. Carey] was elected a member of this House. 
Now, I have no objection to the gentleman being returned as a Republican Sena- 
tor, if the Republicans are to have the Senators, but I do not understand why he 
wanted it by such a large majority. [Laughter.] Why not let a few Democrats in ? 

Mr. Washington. Why not make the race interesting ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, as my friend here says, why not make the race interest- 
ing ? Here are the figures by counties, showing how many delegates will be elected 
in Wyoming, and I will put them all in the Record. So much for that apportionment. 

The gentleman from Kansas and the delegate from Idaho desired to know who 
the minority on this side represented. They said we did not represent the Demo- 
crats of Idaho, and certainly that we did not represent the Republicans. We do 
not claim it. But we do claim to represent the people of the United States who 
sent us here. We represent the 5,500,000 Democrats who voted for Cleveland at 
the time we were elected members of this body. [Applause on the Democratic 
side.] And I desire to remind the gentleman that at that election 95,000 more 
votes were cast for Cleveland than for Harrison. [Renewed applause.] So we 
represent the majority of the people of the United States in protesting against this 
constitution. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

Should a contested election case ever come to Congress from 
Idaho or Wyoming the Republicans will be afforded an excellent 
opportunity to expatiate upon the '' suppressed vote." 

Arizona. 

The last House had a bill to admit Arizona, but it was never 
reached. This House has refused to admit it, and all that its 
friends have been able to do is to have the bill referred to a sub- 



NEW STATES. 127 

committee of the Committee on Territories, and this sub-com- 
mittee has nursed it to death. In the face of the admission of 
two Republican Territories, the House dare not take positive 
and open action against the two Democratic Territories, so it 
smothers their cries. 

Speaking on the Idaho bill, Hon. Marcus A. Smith, Demo- 
cratic delegate in Congress from Arizona said : 

The population of Arizona in 1880 by the national census was 40,000 ; the 
population of Idaho was 32,619. The registered vote of Arizona in 1888 was 
16,330; the vote for Delegate in Idaho in 1888 was 16,013. The area in square 
miles of Arizona is 113,929 ; the area in Idaho is 86,234. The forest acreage of 
Arizona is 20,000,000— a thing unknown to this House— 20,000,000 acres of land of 
as fine forest as there is in the world — yet this is called an arid country, with 
nothing in it — nothing but sand-hills and waste and sage-brush. Yet there stands 
within it the largest body of untouched timber to-day on this continent ; and by 
the way, our people have not the right to touch it. If they want to build a church 
to worship the living God they must send to Oregon to get the lumber at $35 per 
thousand feet, when trees are growing within a hundred miles of them as fine as 
grace the earth. 

Those 20,000,000 acres of forest alone stands a guaranty to Congress of 
Arizona's power and willingness to take care of herself. Idaho has only 10,000,000 
acres. 

Take, now, the assessed property of these Territories, which I estimate at 
about one-third or one-quarter of the actual value. In 1889 Arizona had, by the 
figures taken from the county tax-lists, $30,000,000 ; Idaho, $24,000,000. The esti- 
mated values are : Arizona, $95,000,000 ; Idaho, $68,000,000. 

The bullion output for 1887 was: Arizona, $10,751,555; Idaho, $9,000,000. I 
liave not the figures for Arizona for 1889, but it is safe and honest for me to say 
that, in my opinion, Idaho has far outstripped her in the product of the mine in 
that period if the Idaho returns are correct. That discrepancy may have resulted 
from some great discovery of rich mines in Idaho. I do not know the exact rea- 
son, but I see from the report that Idaho has made the marvelous output of $17,000,- 
000 from her mines during the past year. How these figures were obtained I do 
not know. Whether they are accurate or not I do not know. 

The cattle of Arizona are estimated at 1,150,000, and by the same estimate, which 
is derived from the tax-lists of the various counties in the Territory, I find that 
Idaho has less than 1,000,000. Of sheep we have 1,390,000 ; Idaho, 900,000. The 
figures in the report of the Department of Agriculture are taken, I presume, from 
the tax-lists of the various counties, and when you gentlemen understand that these 
herds of cattle roam over an area of hundreds of miles, that there are sometimes 
15,000 or 20,000 in a herd, and that the tax-gatherer has no earthly means of know- 
ing the exact number, but must take what is given him, you will readily understand 
that the real number is probably greatly understated. In the county where I live 
vre know that the figures do not represent over one-third of the actual number. 
But, taking the figures as representing one-third, the report of the Department of 
Agriculture shows cattle in Arizona, 698,000 ; in Idaho, 480,000. 

Comparing railroads, we have 1,097 miles in Arizona, with some 150 or 200 
miles more under construction, while Idaho has 888 miles by the last report, and 
no further lines under contract. 

* ** * * 4r *.* * * -je- 



128 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Mr. Speaker, it is an outrage to keep out of this Union a State containing" 
100,000 of as well-educated people as are to be found within the borders of this, 
broad land, a people with less illiteracy and with as much patriotic devotion to the 
country and as much ability to take care of themselves as can be i:und in any 
equal number of people in any other part of the Union. Yet those people are kept 
out of the Union, are kept in disgraceful servitude, while this Congress legislates 
about their affairs without consulting them. Bills are introduced and considered 
here affecting the interests of the people of Arizona that have never been asked 
for by them, bills which, if passed, will ruin or greatly damage them. 
************ 

We ask of Congress simply to give us the enabling act which I have introduced^ 
* * * * * -X- * * * * * 

True, the Committee on Territories has been informed by several self-constituted 
ambassadors from Arizona, that the people of that Territory did not desire state- 
hood. Prominent among these was the present governor, whose term of office is 
lengthened or shortened by the action the committee may take on the enabling act 
which I have introduced. Statehood for Arizona means his descent from the high 
office which he now holds. 

In answer to his assertions, I submit, first, that the press of the Territory^ 
regardless of politics, favor my enabling act. Second, the representatives of the 
people convened in General Assembly at its last session, passed an act providing 
for a constitutional convention. By the terms of the act the governor was directed 
to make the call by proclamation for the election of delegates to such convention. 
This bill passed both houses and received the sanction of the then governor. It 
was thus the law of the land which all were bound to respect. 

Just at this time Governor Wolfley's appointment was confirmed by the United 
States Senate. He came on from Washington and ben^an to review the acts of the 
Legislature. He immediately deemed this particular act unwise and violated pub- 
lic conception of his duty by refusing to see that the laws were " faithfully exe- 
cuted," and outraged the people by refusing to issue the proclamation required of 
him by law. Yet he comes before members of the committee and asserts that Ari- 
zona does not want statehood. He did not represent the people in such action any 
more than he represents their choice as governor. 

It has been urged that Arizona's debt is large, and therefore she should not be 
admitted to the Union of States. The debt will remain until paid, whether we be 
Territory or State. Kept down by a condition of dependence, the debt will grow 
faster than our resources. Given statehood, a rapid increase of population and 
wealth will follow, our wonderful resources will be speedily developed, and the 
debt will soon and easily be paid. What is now a grievious burden might then be- 
came a light and easy load. 

The existence cff such a debt is to my mind the strongest possible argument 
against a territorial form of government. The existence of such a debt is in a. 
measure due to reckless legislation, but ill-advised legislation is not by any means 
the only reason for it. We have never received one cent of aid from the National 
Government in any public building. We have built many at great cost from our 
own means. Courthouses, school-houses, asylums, jails, hospitals, and colleges are 
necessary adjuncts of modern civilization. We have assumed a large debt in order 
to maintain charity, preserve order, educate the young, protect the helpless, and 
aid the infirm, and this very fact is here offered as an argument against our ability 
to sustain proper government. Is it not rather an assurance that we are eminently 
able and willing to do it ? 



NKW STATES. 



129 



The population of Arizona has been urged as insufficient. I admit that we 
are much below the present ratio of representation in Congress ; but so is Idaho, 
and so was Wyoming. A waiver of the objection in the case of these two ought 
equitably to waive it in our case. But that we have a far greater population than 
many States had at the date of their admission the following table, taken from the 
report in the Wyoming case, will clearly show. The table, I think, was compiled 
by the industry of my friend from Wyoming [Mr. Carey]. It is as follows : 



STATES. 


Population 

when 
admitted. 


STATES. 


Population 

when 
admitted. 


Ohio 


45,000 
63,000 
35,000 
35,000 
40,000 




66,000 

45,000 

100,000 

100,000 

100,000 


Tn rlia.na, 


Oregon 




Kansas 


Illinois 


Nebraska 


Alflliflmfl. . . . . 


Colorado 







The population noted in each instance was based upon an estimate or an im- 
perfect census. It shows an average population of but little above 60,000 for each 
State. Nearly every State doubled its population in five years after admission. 

From the same source I also obtained the following table, showing the votes 
cast at Presidential elections at different periods in the history of the several 
States mentioned : 



States. 


Years, 
after 

admis- 
sion. 


Votes 
cast. 


Members 

of 
Congress. 


T'pnnpcsQPP. . . . ........ 


28 
8 
10 
14 
15 
19 
15 
19 


20,725 
15,725 

8,344 
19,576 

5,193 
19,333 

5,007 
19,667 

3,638 
11,309 
16,888 
19,357 
11,360 
18,914 

4,963 

7,193 
14,345 
15,177 
18,647 
24,303 
39,166 
13,410 
14,649 
15,168 
26,141 


9 
3 


Indiana 


Illinois 


1 
3 




3 




3 




3 




3 


A vVca.Ti «!fl.R 


1 




4 
13 
16 


1 


n 


1 




3 


Michigan 


1 


Louisiana , 


28 
3 
7 

15 
3 
7 
3 


4 


Florida 


1 




1 




1 


Texas 


2 
3 


Iowa 


3 


Wisconsin 


3 




2 
14 

3 
6 


1 




1 


Nebraska 


1 




1 







Wisconsin Territory at election preceding admission cast 20,318 votes; ad- 
mitted with two Representatives, and she cast, first Congressional election, 24,600. 

Iowa admitted with two Representatives, who were elected with total vote of 
20,064. 

Kansas cast at second Congressional election after admission 15,272. 

Nebraska cast first Congressional election subsquent to admission 14,710. 

Colorado cast at election previous to admission 17,100. 
17 



130 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



California at her first State election, after a most bitter political fight, when 
the selection of governor, judiciary, and other State oflacers, including United 
States Senators, were dependent upon the result, cast only 12,875 votes. 

In the great debate over the admission of Oregon and Kansas it was not 
claimed that more than 10,121 votes had ever been cast in the former, and 13,289 
votes in the latter Territory. The votes rejected as well as those counted were 
included in these totals. 

At almost every Presidential election up to and including that of 1872 there 
were from three to five States that did not have as many male voters as there were 
in "Wyoming in 1888. 

Now let us proceed to a comparison of the actually assessed valuation of prop- 
erty of several States shortly after admission. ^ I am indebted to Mr. Carey, of 
Wyoming, for the following facts : 



States. 



Wisconsin 
Arkansas. 
Florida... 

Towa 

Oregon.... 



Assessed 
wealth. 



$31,200,000 
23,400,000 
13,800,000 
13,200,000 
11,400,000 



States. 



Minnesota, 
California. 
Kansas — 
Wyoming. 



wealth. 



$32,087,730 
13,296.000 
22,500,000 
31,500,000 



Arizona has actually on her assessment roll $30,000,000, which is less than one- 
third of her actual wealth. It is safe, then, in view of our scattered population 
and large herds of cattle and sheep that can not be definitely listed, our vast wealth 
in untaxed mines, that we now have more than double the property that any of the 
foregoing States possessed at the time of their admission to the Union. 

Mr. Smith wasted his sweetness on the desert air. 



'New Mexico. 

Hon. Antonio Josephs, Democratic delegate from Kew 
Mexico, pleaded for his people. Among other things, he said : 

A comparison of population and resources will be made between New Mexico 
and Wyoming, which the House has already approved for admission to the Union. 
I desire to be carefully understood that the object of this comparison is not to dis- 
parage the abundant resources of "Wyoming, but merely to show that New Mexico 
is entitled to admission to statehood upon the basis furnished by the proposition 
to admit the Territories of "Wyoming and Idaho. 

The population of Wyoming is stated by the influential and active delegate 
who represents that Territory in the House at 135,000. The census of 1880 showed 
a population of far more than 100,000 in New Mexico at that time. There are no 
accurate statistics to show positively what the population of New Mexico is at the 
present time, but in a very conservative estimate made by the present governor he 
puts the population at 195,000. I believe that it reaches 225,000. There has been 
a very steady increase every year since 1880, and the filings at the two land 
offices in the Territory during the year ending June 30, 1889, amounted to 283,537 
acres. Since that time two additional land offices have been opened, and the in- 
c rease in filings has been very great. This increase has been largely from the 



NKW STATKS. 131 

farming States of Missouri, Indiana, and Illinois, and is of the very best class of 
settlers. 

The assessed property in Wyoming in 1889 was $31,500,000 ; in New Mexico, 
for 1889, thof last available figures, it was $48,690,723. It must be remembered also, 
in this connection, that the values of cattle and sheep have somewhat diminished 
during the past few years. These are two of the great sources of wealth of New 
Mexico. Notwithstanding the present decrease in the prices there is a constant in- 
crease in the assessed value of the property in the Territory. This increase must, 
as the governor well states, represent considerable increase in the real estate values. 

The tax levy of the Territory shows a total of $418,406.13, according to the 
table hereto annexed. 

Statement of Tax Levy of 1888, hy Counties. 

Bernalillo $49,119.75 

Colfax 60,172.77 

Dgna Ana 29,686.98 

Grant 42,778.88 

Lincoln 33,119.76 

Mora 19,598.66 

Rio Arriba 10,617.69 

San Juan 4,932.00 

San Miguel 64,957.72 

Santa Fe 26,466.93 

Sierra 18,547.30 

Socorro. 32,256.74 

Taos 6,149.61 

Valencia 20,001.34 

Total 418,406.13 

The agricultural resources of the Territory have been very fully referred to by 
me in my speeches of April 14 and May 28, 1888, and January 17, 1889. The last 
report of the governor also refers to this subject : 

A SPLENDID SHOWING — OFFICIAL FIGURES ON NEW MEXICO'S AGRICULTURE — A 
FLATTERING FUTURE ASSURED. 

Statistician Dodge, of the Government Agricultural Department, has just 
issued some official figures on Western agriculture for 1889 which make a very grat- 
ifying exhibit for our fair yet much-maligned Territory ; figures which will prove 
of especial interest to a large class of the New Mexican's readers, not only the 
friends of statehood, but also to the hundreds of people at home and abroad who 
are now engaged in making it possible to enlarge the cultivable area by the con- 
struction of irrigation enterprises. These figures show what New Mexico has done 
while handicapped in a manner that no other section of the Union has ever been 
called upon to fight against ; they make it plain that New Mexico will advance, 
despite every obstacle, and when one considers that more than $1,000,000 are now 
going into new irrigation companies, which will reclaim within the present year 
more than 2,000,000 acres of New Mexico valley land, some idea of New Mexico's 
outlook from the standpoint of horticulture and agriculture maybe arrived at. 
Statistician Dodge's figures for the corn crop are as follows : 



- 


Acres 
planted. 


Bushels 
realized. 


Value of 
crop. 


Hoi OTfl.fl o '.. 


42,993 
56,279 
35,175 


1,092,000 

1,126,000 

644,000 


$aS3,373 
675,468 
393,650 




Utah 





132 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



The returns for the wheat crop are from a more extended territory, as follows : 





Acres 
planted. 


Bushels 
realized. 


Value of 
crop. 




87,300 
18,396 
25,930 
81,427 
85.000 
86,295 
122,878 


1,851,000 
335,000 
337,000 
1,440,000 
1,519,000 
1,096,000 
1,880,000 


$1,333,51T 
2511250 

252,218 


Nevada 


Arizona 




Montana 






800,041 
1,410,025 


utan 





The following are the estimates of the oat crop : 








Acres 
planted. 


Bushels 
realized. 


Value of 
crop. 




97,791 

5,725 
85,937 
16,668 
36,658 


3,129,000 

1,000,000 

2,2^8.000 

340,000 

916,000 


$1,251,725 

450,135 

1,134,383 

142,602 

412,403 


Idaho 


Montana 




Utah 





75 to 300 


5 to 


30 


ito 


1 


Ito 


6 


10 to 


25 


30 to 


75 


10 to 


25 



It will be seen that in quantity and value, excepting oats, of the three grains 
estimated. New Mexico ranks with Colorado and Montana. 
New Mexico also raises in superabundance : 

Afalfa, per cutting tri-annually .tons. . 2 

Potatoes, sweet bushels per acre . . 75 to 100 

Parsnips do 175 to 275 

Mangoes (weighing 30 to 40 pounds each) do 500 to 800 

Beets do 175 to 400 

Carrots do 

Cabbages weighing pounds per head. . 

Tomatoes weighing pounds each. . 

Cucumbers do 

Squash (hubbard) do 

Squash (marrowfat) do 

Pumpkins do 

Besides these. New Mexico valleys raise cotten, flax, hemp, tobacco, sorghum, 
rice, chilli, egg-plant, beans, and other garden vegetables, with excellent hops ; and, 
more yet, after harvesting her crop of wheat, oats, barley, or peas, she plows anew, 
and the same year secures a crop of corn, cabbage, beets, or turnips. 

In fruits, her apples, pears, peaches, apricots, plums, cherries, gages, quinces, 
equal those of any State in the Union, while her almonds, chestnuts, English 
walnuts, and filberts will bear successful competition with the nut-growers of the 
world. Her vineyards have for ten years stood equal with any in America in pro- 
duct, flavor, and wine yields ; her melons have, so far, met with no superior on the 
continent ; while her small fruits, such as strawberries, gooseberries, raspberries, 
currants, etc., with asparagus, celery, spinach, radishes, and peanuts are unrivaled» 
and your Agricultural Department will tell you her onions beat the world. 

Her plains now and for years past have been dotted with profitable ranches 
crowded with cattle, sheep, and horses, with more favorable round-ups and less 
percentage of loss than any cattle country of the West can show, and with her 
beef, mutton, wool, and horses standing on the first grade in Chicago and Eastern 
marts. The most nutritious grasses cover the broad plateaus of New Mexico 
v/hich will continue for years to grow, to ofCer the best grazing facilities of any 
c.Utle country in the United States. The cost of beef-raising is nominal, as stock 



NKW STATES. 



13; 



need never be housed or fed. The high and dry climate precludes almost the pos- 
sibility of disease among sheep and cattle. At least half the lands of New Mexico 
are especially adapted to grazing purposes; and even if future improvement 
tempted agriculture, stock-raising would always be more profitable. So that New 
Mexico will forever be one of the main supplies of the beef-eaters of the world. 

Governor Amy said of New Mexico: "For the profitable raising of horses, 
mules, cattle, goats, and sheep, and on the most extensive scale, no portion of the 
world can rival this district. Its mild climate presents no rigors, while its moun- 
tain slopes, valleys, and plains are unlimited extents of pasturage." 

Her mountains and high table-lands offer immense forests of pine and spruce, 
enough for ample supply of lumber to her growing population and rapidly building 
cities. 

I might be more explicit with regard to her capacity as a wine-producing coun- 
try. The Rio Grande and Pecos River valleys produce grapes in wild profusion, 
whose wines are ranked for table use and compare favorably with Rhine wines. 
Pair estimates, from practicable sources, give the value of an acre of land well set 
"with vines at from three to five hundred dollars. As early as 1804 Baron Humboldt 
said of this country : " The vineyards produce excellent wines, which are preferred 
even to the wines of Parras and New Biscay." Almost any of the side-hills offer 
excellent vineyard sites, but especially wealthy in this respect is the Rio Grand val- 
ley, extending a distance of 350 miles in New Mexico. 

HEK MINEKAL KESOUKCES. 

It has been stated, and I believe is true, that " the knowledge of the mineral 
-wealth of New Mexico had caused it for a long time previous to its acquisition, in 
1846, to be looked upon by the United States as a most desirable addition to the 
Union." 

Early after 1846 rumors of its still fabulous wealth, added to the historical 
mineral riches it had given for years to Old Mexico, induced hardy pioneers to test 
its richness, and during that period, (from 1846 to 1880,) notwithstanding its isola- 
tion and its then total lack of transportation, notwithstanding the difficulty of 
obtaining tools or supplies, notwithstanding the miners had to work with arms and 
ammunition at hand to meet the persistent attacks of hordes of savages — in spite 
of such almost insurmountable obstacles, in those few years your mint statistics 
show that those brave delvers dug from the plethoric bowels of New Mexico 
$13,972,000 in ore, of which $10,350,000 was gold and $3,622,000 silver. 

The succeeding five years, from 1885 to 1889, the production of the Territory 



Yeaks. 


Gold. 


SUver. 


Total. 


1885 


$691,000 
700,000 
709,000 
911,000 
797,000 


$1,985,000 
3,376 000 
3,700,000 
4,381,000 
5,671.000 


$3,676,000 
4,076,000 
4,409,000 
5,393,000 
6,468,000 


1886 


18 7 


1888 •••• 


1889 , 




Total 


$3,808,000 


$19,113,000 


$33,921,000 





The production of copper was, for the years 1888 and 1889, $10,000,000. 
This does not include many valuable shipments of ore sentio other States for 
reduction. Nor does it make allowance for copper ingot, ore, and matte from the 



134 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Territory, amounting in that five years to several millions. But the figures demon- 
strate that the product of the precious metals increased rapidly every year. 

Gold has been found in nearly every county in the Territory, either in the river 
or creek beds as placers, or in the mountain ranges in veins or lodes as quartz. 

Lead and smelting ores abound in nearly every portion of the Territory, com^ 
prising gold and silver ores, which, being allied to the baser metals, as lead, zinc, 
sulphur, etc., cannot be profitably reduced except by smelting. 

Silver, in the form of native, ruby, or vitreous silver, is found in richly paying- 
quantities in many districts of the Territory. Copper has been found in many 
districts in largely profitable veins, but the depressed condition of that market and 
the high rate of railroad transportation during the past two years have prevented 
its extensive working. 

Lead, iron, mica, cement, gypsum, fire-clay, in inexhaustible amounts, excellent 
marble, turquoise of purest blue — but, sir, I would weary the House and myself to 
enumerate the extent and variety of the authentically recorded minerals of this 
Territory, and I close with a brief allusion to her coal, the mining of which, though 
in its infancy, has already become an important factor in the resources of the Ter- 
ritory. The United States Geological Survey report gives some instructive facts and 
figures, as published by your Interior Department. It says : 

In New Mexico, coal is found in seven counties, in beds from 1 to 14 feet thick. 
The quality ranges through all varieties, from brown to anthracite. The most im- 
portant fields yet opened are those in Colfax county, and embrace an area of 600,000 
acres, the product being a lignite, which varies greatly in quality. The following 
analyses were made from specimens taken near the surface : 



Constituents. 


Top of 
vein. 


Middle. 


Bottom. 




Per cent. 

2.00 
37.10 
51.60 

9.30 


Per cent. 

3.10 

35.00 

51.50 

10.40 


Per cent. 
2.60 




34.30 


Fixed carbon 


47.50 


Ash 


15.60 






Total 


100.00 


100.00 


100.00 







The report further says of the coal mined from the Los Cerillos beds : 

The coal is hard, dense, and of a brilliant luster, and is said to be, so far a» 
application for all practical purposes is concerned, fully equally to the best Penn- 
sylvania anthracite. 

It also gives minute reports of bituminous coal-beds in other portions of the 
Territory, and closes generally with the following : 

The New Mexico coals compare favorably with those found farther north. 
The production of the Territory since 1885 has been f 





Raton. 


Gallup. 


Monero. 


Cerillos. 


San Pedro. 


Total. 


1885 


91,798 
112,089 
102,513 
135,833 


,33,373 
42 0n0 
62,802 
97,755 


12,000 
17,240 
11,203 
14,958 


3,600 
3,000 
3,000 
1,000 


16,321 

37,018 
41,039 
56,656 


157,092 


1886 


211,3*7 


18o7 


220,557 


1888 


306,202 


1889 .... 


271,285 




• 












fi-rflTifl tntal 


1,116,483 

















NEW STATES. 135 



And continues : 



Placing the value of these coals at $5 per ton (which is a fair average for the 
entire period), the value of the product of the Territory during the past five years 
is, in total, $5,833,415. 

It is surely not necessary, Mr. Speaker, that this intelligent House should be 
burdened with further citations to prove the capacity of New Mexico for State 
government and her promise in native resources for enriching all the myriads of 
industrious people who will eventually crowd her borders, and for adding one of 
the most lustrous to the galaxy of States that glorify this Union. 

It is enough, sir, to say that New Mexico offers population sufl3,cient, resources 
•adequate, wealth enough to make and keep her statehood. She has made the same 
offer for years, and for years she has been refused admittance as a State. 

As to sheep, I can only compare the 4,328,753 sheep in New Mexico, as shown 
l)j the official reports, with the 1,250,000 estimated by the distinguished delegate 
from Wyoming as in that Territory. In cattle. New Mexico and Wyoming, each 
of them with about 1,500,000, are striving in friendly rivalry for the superiority. 

New Mexico has now in round figures 1,500 miles of railroad and five more 
Toads in course of construction, which will give us 500 miles more during the 
present year ; making the entire railway mileage 2,000. 

As to banking facilities in New Mexico, the Comptroller of the Currency 
reports to me that there are nine national banks, with an aggregate capital of 
$975,000, with bonds to secure circulation aggregating $277,500, and a circulation 
of $249,750. Besides the national banks there are fourteen county banks, which 
are capitalized at an average of $50,000 each, or $700,000, making a total of 
$1,675,000 as the banking capital of the Territory. Wyoming shows nine national 
I)anks and eleven private banks. The capital of the national banks is $1,175,000, 
l)ut that of the private banks is not stated. 

In Wyoming there are ten organized counties ; in New Mexico there are 
fourteen. In Wyoming eight of the counties have substantial court-houses and 
jails ; in New Mexico the report of the governor shows that ten of the fourteen 
counties have such buildings, that one additional county has purchased land and 
is about to erect such a building, and that another is building a fine modern court- 
house whose value, with the land on which it stands and surrounding buildings, 
will be $70,000. All of these buildings have been erected within the past ten years, 
thus showing the march of public spirit in the Territory during that period. 

The financial system of the Territory has been placed upon a sound basis by a 
Tecent act of the Legislature. The pleadings in the courts by another act have re- 
oently been brought into entire harmony with the best systems of the States, while 
-constant improvements are being made by the Legislature in the laws relating to 
administration, the business and the control of property. Two new counties have 
just been established, and four important Territorial institutions — a university, an 
agricultural college, a school of mines, and a lunatic asylum — show the regard the 
people of New Mexico have for education and the care of the unfortunate. 

No very definite figures have been submitted in regard to education in Wyo- 
ming. It is stated that nearly 300 teachers are employed, and that good graded 
schools are maintained in all the towns and cities of the Territory. In the gover- 
nor's report for New Mexico it is shown that 342 public schools were in active 
operation in the Territory on October 1, 1889, with an enrollment of 16,803 pupils. 
In 143 of these schools nothing but English is taught ; in 93 some instruction is 
included in Spanish, and in 106 the instruction is in the Spanish language, but even 



136 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

in these latter schools the pupils, with very few exceptions, understand English, 
This makes a total of 236 schools under English instruction. 

The instruction in Spanish is found principally in the older counties, while in 
the counties in which there has been the greater proportion of immigration from 
the East, the English language is taught to the exclusion of Spanish. In addition 
to the public schools there are a very large number of private educational institu- 
tions which are well attended and ably conducted. The people of New Mexico 
are deeply interested in the maintenance of the public-school system, and it is only 
a matter of a few years' continuance of the present generous support for the school 
system of New Mexico to be on a par with the best in the country so far as can be 
in a less thickly populated locality. 

This review of the population and resources of New Mexico shows that New 
Mexico has certainly an equal title to statehood with Wyoming. Indeed, I main- 
tained in the last Congress, and I believed that I fully established, that her title to 
statehood, in point of population and resources, was as good as that of the States 
recently admitted. 

New Mexico is the only Territory which holds the pledge of the United States 
government that it shall be admitted as a State. By the treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo, statehood was guaranteed to New Mexico, but the time was left discre- 
tionary in Congress. 

That discretion, however, must be exercised as a reasonable discretion, and 
can not lawfully be used as an excuse for indefinite delay in admission. It has 
now been over forty years since the date of that treaty, and yet the admission of 
New Mexico is denied. In 1850 Senators and a Representative were elected and 
the admission of New Mexico was discussed in both Houses of Congress, but failed. 
The people of New Mexico believed themselves entitled to admission, but on ac- 
count of the excitement of the civil war and other interruptions no further action 
was taken until the year 1874, when an enabling act passed both Houses of Congress, 
but was defeated only by reason pf the close of the session before question of 
difference could be settled in conference. In 1876 the Senate again passed a bill 
for this purpose. 

In the last Congress the Committee on Territories reported in favor of the 

admission of New Mexico, but, in order not to endanger the passage of the 

bill for admission of the other States, the name of New Mexico was stricken out. 

The honor of the United States is pledged to the redemption of treaty obligation. 

^ ^ » * * * * * * ** 

It has been intimated to me that there has been some opposition to her admis- 
sion on the ground that a large number of her inhabitants are members of the 
Catholic Church. I can not believe that any member of this House could permit 
his action to be influenced by a motive of this kind. Religion and politics must be 
kept separate. No doctrine is more firmly fixed in the minds of the American citi- 
zens than this. We are ready to submit to an examination as to our wealth, our 
education, our honor, to determine our right to statehood, but it would be foreign 
to our institutions to cause an investigation of our religious faith to determine 
whether we are qualified to exercise the full rights of citizenship. 

I have read in some of the newspapers of the country various slurs upon New 
Mexico upon the ground that her people are not as well educated as those of the 
more densely-populated parts of the East. I am ready to admit that with her un- 
developed resources New Mexico has not been able to give the same educational 
Massachusetts or New York, but I reply to this by saying that the 



NEW STATES. 137 

people of New Mexico have shown their devotion to the cause of education by the 
establishment of an elaborate system of public schools and increased appropriations 
from year to year for their support, and that the gift of statehood to the people of 
New Mexico would do more than any other one thing to aid in the increase of 
schools within her borders. I may claim, too, for those citizens of New Mexico 
who have not had the advantages of education, that they are as peaceful and law- 
abiding and as earnestly devoted to free institutions as the inhabitants of any part 
of this great country. 

Finally, it is asserted that the people of New Mexico are not Americans, that 
they speak a foreign language, and that they have no affinity with American insti- 
tutions. It is true that we have a large population in New Mexico who speak the 
Spanish language, and that among the older persons who are descended from the 
original settlers of the country some still remain who are ignorant of English. 
But it is undoubtedly true that there are very few persons in New Mexico under 
thirty years of age who are unable to speak English, and that year by year the use 
of the English language is taking the place of Spanish. The gentle accents of the 
Spanish tongue will always be dear to those who are descended from the first 
settlers of New Mexico ; they will always look with affection upon that language, 
and its familiar use may never be wholly eradicated. But the people of New 
Mexico realize that they are a part of the United States, and that the English 
language is the national language, and it is a fixed and definite principle among 
them all that the English language shall be taught to every child in New Mexico^ 

Can the Congress of the United States refuse admission as a State because a 
part of the people of the proposed State speak the Spanish language ? The pledge 
to admit New Mexico as a State contained no condition that all the inhabitants 
should learn the English language. 

*»* * * * * * * * * * 

But if we exclude entirely from our calculation as to the number of inhabi- 
tants of New Mexico the native New Mexican population, I do not doubt that we 
would find that over 100,000 persons — nearly equal to the whole population of 
Wyoming — are now living in New Mexico who came there from the Eastern States, 
and who have not a drop of Spanish or Mexican blood in their veins. The persons 
of Spanish descent in New Mexico are now in a minority, which will proportion- 
ately decrease with the constant stream of immigration from the States into New 
Mexico. 

But it is not by blood and language that the devotion of the people of 1^ew 
Mexico to the United States and to republican institutions is to be measured. 
These are the descendants of the bold discoverers who left the monarchial institu- 
tions of Spain and came to the New World, and who, with their fellow country- 
men in Old Mexico, shook off the chains of foreign domination, as did the hardy 
English forefathers of the Atlantic States. The devotion to republican institutions 
of the ancestors of our Spanish and Mexican descended inhabitants of New Mex- 
ico was not less than that of the heroes of the Revolution. When New Mexico 
became a part of the territory of the United States her people were living under 
republican institutions and devoted to them. 

*********** 

Since that time more than forty years have elapsed, and all during this period 
they have been under the protection of the United States flag. Have they any 
Other allegiance ? Can any other power ever call for their assistance ? The people 

18 



138 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

of New Mexico are as much citizens of the United States as the people of Ohio, 
Indiana, or Illinois. 
*********** 

There are no more loyal or patriotic people in the United States than the Mex- 
ican citizens of my Territory. They are by nature mild and sympathetic, their 
hearts are as tender as that of a child, but in the hour of peril brave as lions. 
*********** 

During the late rebellion, true to their natural instincts, they were loyal to the 
Union and fought most bravely to drive out invaders, as the bleaching bones of 
their dead soldiers in the scorching sands of Valverde, Glorieta, and Canoncito to 
this day bear unimpeachable testimony. 

The bill introduced by me in the early part of this session, providing for the 
admission of New Mexico, was merely an enabling act to permit the people of the 
Territory to form a State constitution under which they would be admitted to the 
Union. A constitution for New Mexico, adopted by a convention composed almost 
exclusively of Republican delegates, has been presented to this House, and I under- 
stand that a proposition has been placed before the Committee on Territories that 
New Mexico should be admitted under this constitution. In opposing such a con- 
dition to the admission of New Mexico I believe that I represent not only the 
wishes of all the Democratic voters of the Territory, but of more than three- 
fourths of its Republican voters. An act was passed by the Territorial Legislature 
authorizing a constitutional convention, but the apportionment of delep-ates to this 
convention was characterized by the most outrageous partisanship, Tn^ Tollowing 
extract from a letter by ex-Governor Edwin G. Ross to the gentleman from Mis- 
souri, [Mr. Mansur,] of January 5, 1890, shows the partisan nature of the appor- 
tionment of delegates and the action of the Democratic voters and Democratic 
central committee of New Mexico : 

Primarily, that refusal was based on the exceeding unfairness of the apportion- 
ment fixed in the act of the Legislature authorizing the election of the delegates 
to the convention. That apportionment made it impossible for the Democrats to 
elect anything approaching a proportionate representation in that convention. It 
was so fixed with the avowed purpose, by the reputed author of the convention 
bill, of preventing such a representation. 

Including, and since the election of 1883 the popular vote of the Territory for 
Delegate in Congress has been Democratic by more than 1,500 majority at every 
election, though by reason of an equally unfair apportionment for the election of 
members of the Legislature (which was made the basis of the apportionment for 
the election of the convention), the several Legislatures have uniformly been Re- 
publican. 

To illustrate that unfairness a few examples will suffice. 

The counties of Colfax and Mora are contiguous northern counties. At the 
last general election they cast, respectively, 1,680 and 2,212 votes, or an aggregate 
of 3,892 — Democratic by majorities of 168 and 700 re^ectively. They were each 
allowed four delegates in the convention, making eight. The county of Bernalillo 
is Republican by 430 majority. It has a voting population of 3,564, 328 less than 
Colfax and Mora, "yet was given ten delegates, two more than were allowed the 
larger number of voters in Colfax and Mora, 

The Democratic county of Dofia Ana, with 2,015 voters, was allowed three 
delegates, while the Republican county of Valencia, with 2,064 voters, was allowed 
six. 

The Democratic county of Grant, with 2,297 voters, had three delegates, while 
the Republican county of Socorro, with 2,524 voters, had six. 

These data were before the convention, and there can be no justification of 
these inequalities. 

These constitute one-half of the counties and more than one-half of the popu- 



NEW STATES. 139 

lation of the Territory, and fairly illustrate the character of the system of appor- 
tionment that has prevailed in the election of our Legislature and of delegates to 
this constitutional convention. 

To have gone into that election un4er such conditions would have been folly 
and suicidal. 

The Democrats were practically and intentionally disfranchised, but, unwilling 
to be placed in the attitude of obstructionists until all efforts for a compromise 
should have failed, it was determined to seek an arrangement whereby this unjust 
disparity could be at least partially remedied, and they permitted, without an abso- 
lute sacrifice of self-respect, to contest the election of delegates to the convention. 

Accordingly a conference between the central committees of the two political 
parties was asked and had. 

The whole number of delegates to the convention was 73. Though, in a large 
majority on the popular vote, and believing themselves entitled to, and could elect, 
with a fair apportionment, a corresponding majority of the delegates, the Demo- 
cratic committee proposed to concede to the Republicans, as the basis of an arrange- 
ment under which they would consent to go into the election, a majority of 5 in 
the convention. 

That more than fair proposition was rejected by the Republican committee, 
and it was then determined to take no part in the election. 

At the last election for Delegate to Congress a vote of nearly 32,000 was polled. 
At the election for delegates to the constitutional convention so great was the dis- 
approbation of the people for the methods used in calling this constitutional con- 
vention, which should have been as free from partisanship as possible, that the total 
vote for delegates was but little in excess of 7,000. 

The constitution as adopted contains numerous provisions which might be ac- 
ceptable to the people of New Mexico if adopted by a convention properly repre- 
senting them ; but in the apportionment of the new State Legislature therein pro- 
vided for, the same partisanship as described in the letter of Governor Ross, just 
quoted, prevails. If the Territory should be admitted as a State under this consti- 
tution, the wishes of the popular majority would not be expressed by the Legislature 
which should be elected under this partisan apportionment. My own county of 
Taos is by a large proportion in excess of the adjoining county of Rio Arriba. The 
former has a Democratic majority and the latter a Republican. Under the system 
adopted by this constitutional convention the former county, although greater in 
population, has but two representatives in the lower house of the Legislature, while 
the latter, in consideration of the politics of its citizens, is given three. 

The framers of this constitution knew so well that it could not receive the 
approbation of a majority of the voters of the Territory that they made no pro- 
vision in it nor has the Legislature since made any provision for its submission to 
the people.. A popular vote upon it would disclose that the people would not 
submit to having a constitution foisted upon them under which the Legislature 
would wholly fail to represent the popular will. Out of 32,000 voters in New 
Mexico but 7,000 participated in the election of delegates to this constitutional 
convention. The remaining 25,000 voters had no part in the formation of this 
constitution. 

If an enabling act be passed, the people of the Territory will be united in the 
election of a constitutional convention which will frame a constitution in sub- 
stantial accord with the wishes of all the people. Such an enabling act should 
provide for an apportionment of the delegates to the constitutional convention in 
accordance with the number of votes cast at the last Congressional election, the 
largest polled at any election in the Territory. In this way the whole people of 
New Mexico will be represented in proportion to their numbers, and the constitu- 
tion adopted will be a true expression of the popular will. 



140 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

It will be seen that both these Territories are far ahead of 
the two that were admitted, and that in many respects each of 
them exceeds in qualifications the Territories of Idaho and 
Wyoming combined. It will also be observed — for it stands out 
too boldly to be overlooked — that the Republican party applies 
to all Democratic communities every sort of religious test that 
its ingenuity can devise. There is no diversity of opinion among 
the people as to the propriety of stamping out evil practices, 
whether founded on religious creeds or arising from evil disposi- 
tions; but the Democratic party insists, as its founder insisted, 
that a man's opinion and belief shall not be made a test of his 
qualifications for citizenship. 

The Republican party, on the contrary, insists that unless a 
man's mind entertains the same convictions that are entertained 
by that party as to politics and religion, he cannot enjoy the 
rights of citizenship in the Republic. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 141 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 



CONSPIRACY TO UNSEAT DULY ELECTED REPRESEN- 
TATIVES. 



Sow the Work was Hone and the £Tidence. 

When the Fifty-first Congress met on December 2, 1889, the 
House of Representatives held a Republican majority of eight, 
including five from the new States, in a total membership of 
three hundred and thirty. The returns of the last election had 
disclosed the fact that there had been cast about 100,000 more 
Democratic than Republican votes in the country, and the 
majority in the House, realizing that they would be unable to 
keep a quorum of their members present to attend to their 
duties, and knowing full well that the Democrats would not 
vote to permit them to enact extravagant appropriations, sub- 
sidy, bounty and outrageous tax laws, or laws to control the elec- 
tions of the people, and that the many radical schemes that it 
had promised to push through to compensate the fat fryers and 
others for their contributions to the corrupt campaign fund used 
in the election that returned a Republican majority, must fail, 
unless something extraordinary should be done to overcome the 
difiiculties that confronted them, began to search out a way to 
accomplish their purposes. 

Two courses were open to them: They could allow their 
Speaker to control the proceedings of the House as he chose, 
counting members not voting to make a quorum, or they could 
proceed to annul the choice of the people by unseating the 
Democrats that they had elected.^ Either of these courses might 
have proved sufficient, but the Republican majority pursued 
them both, and at once proceeded with their revolutionary 
measures. 

Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, was elected Speaker, and his 
arbitrary and unconstitutional rulings are spoken of elsewhere. 

Immediately after the election and when it had been ascer- 
tained that the Republican majority would be very small, the 
committee that had managed the purchase of the elections took 
steps to have all the defeated Republican candidates, who would 



142 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



lend themselves to its corrupt purpose, to institute contests 
against their successful opponents. 

In consequence of this the Committee on Elections in the 
Fifty-first Congress found eighteen cases of contest pending. 
All the contestants were Republicans, with the possible excep- 
tion of Featherstone, who ran as an Independent Union Labor 
candidate. He has, since being given his seat, acted with the 
Republicans. 

Here is a list of the cases, giving the State, district, Demo- 
cratic majority, how reported and how decided. 



Cask. 


District and 
State. 


Dem. 

official 

majority. 


Committee re- 
port in favor 
of. 


Decided 

against. 


Atkinson vs. Pendleton 

Tln"wpn lis TlnpliaTian . 


1st W.Virginia.. 

9th Virginia 

2d Mississippi... 

3d Arkansas 

10th Tennessee.. 
1st Arkansas.... 

2d Florida 

3d Mississippi... 
7th Mississippi. . 

4th Virginia 

4th Alabama.... 
3d W.Virginia.. 
7th S. Carolina.. 
5th Maryland . . . 

1st Indiana 

4th W. Virginia. 
1st Alabama .... 
3d Virginia 


19 

478 

8,161 

486 

8,419 

1,348 

3,195 

6,010 

7,090 

642 

13,153 

3 

1,355 

181 

20 


Contestant 

Contestee 

Contestee 


Contestee. 

Contestant. 

Contestant. 




Clayton vs. Breckmridge 


No report 

Contestant 

Contestant 

No report 

No report 

Contestant 

Contestant 

Contestant 

Contestant 

Contestant 

Contestee 

Contestant 

Contestee 

Contestant 


Undecided- 


Featherstone vs. Cate 


Contestee. 


Hill vs Cutchings 


Undecided 


Kernaghan vs. Hooker 

Langston vs. Venable 

"!VfpT)nffIp iiQ ThiTnin 


Undecided. 

Contestee. 

Contestee. 


McGinnis vs. Alderson 

Miller i)s Elliott 


Undecided. 
Contestee. 


TVfnrifl n>j riom TYt'.n'n 


Contestee. 












4,489 
361 




Waddill vs Wise 


Contestee. 







All cases in which the committee reports against the Dem- 
ocratic sitting members will be decided by the House according 
to the reports made, if a Republican quorum can be obtained or 
any other method discovered. 

The unreported cases will be reported as soon as the com- 
mitteee can reach them. 

It should be remembered that Congress pays the expenses of 
contests. 

In some of these cases the executive departments, under 
Republican control, refused from the first, though the returns 
showed that the Democratic candidate had a majority, and 
though he held the certificate of election and was discharging 
his official duties, to recognize the sitting member as a represen- 
tative long before the contests were considered in the House ; 
and in at least one instance the Congressional Directory, also 
under Republican control, issued after the meeting of the House 
mid before the consideration of the case, contained the name of 
Republican contestant together with a sketch of his life, and 
omitted the name of the duly elected and sitting member entirely. 
It was well known before the cases were considered what the 
Republican majority would decide, and the employees of the Gov- 
ernment had their instructions accordingly. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 143 

Smith TS. Jackson. 

The first case disposed of was that of Smith vs. Jackson, 
which was reported to the House January 23, and called up 
January 29. Allowing every technicality that could by any 
sort of reason be claimed, the vote stood : 

Total vote for Jackson 19,825 

Deduct illegal votes cast for him 31 

Correct vote of Jackson 19,794 

Total vote for Smith.. 19,837 

Deduct votes clearly proved to be illegal and cast for them 66 

Deduct those the evidence tends to show illegal 21 

87 

19,750 
On this basis the vote would be — 

Jackson 19,794 

Smith, 19,750 

Majority for Jackson 44 

If we deduct only those votes which are clearly and distinctly proven illegal 
and cast for Smith, the vote would be — 

Jackson, total vote 19,825 

Illegal votes 31 

Total legal vote for Jackson 19,794 

Smith, total vote 19,837 

Illegal votes , . , , 66 

Total legal vote of Smith 19,771 

Clear majority for Jackson 23 

February 3, Mr. Jackson was turned out and his seat was 
given to Mr. Smith by a vote of 166 Republican members, ex- 
actly a quorum. Most of the time that this case was under 
consideration was devoted to discussions of the Speaker's out- 
rageous rulings. 

Atkinson ts. Pendleton. 

This was the second case — reported February 19 and called 
up February 26. 

Three statements of the vote in this case may be made, the 
first showing the true state according to the evidence. 

Statement 1. 

Keturned vote for contestee 19,261 

Add votes tendered by duly qualified voters and rejected 2 

19,263 
Deduct illegal votes shown by conclusive testimony to have been cast for him. 28 

Whole vote for contestee 19,235 



144 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Returned vote for contestant 19,242 

Add votes tendered by duly qualified voters and rejected 2 

19,244 
Deduct illegal votes shown by conclusive testimony to have been cast for him. 54 

Whole vote cast for contestant 19,190 

Whole vote for contestee 19,235 

Whole vote for contestant 19,190 

Majority for contestee 45 

Upon the supposition that every voter usually reputed to be 
a Republican voted for Smith, and a like supposition favorable 
to the contestee concerning voters reputed to be Democrats, 
the vote is shown by 

Statement 2. 

Returned vote for contestee 19,261 

Add rejected votes 2 

19,263 

Deduct illegal votes in Statement 1 28 

Deduct illegal votes where evidence shows only that the voters were 
considered or reputed to be Democrats 14 

42 

Whole vote for contestee. 19,221 

Returned vote for contestant 19,242 

Add rejected votes 2 

19,244 

Deduct illegal votes in Statement 1 54 

Deduct illegal votes where evidence shows only that the voters were 
considered or reputed to be Republicans 20 

74 

19,170 

Whole vote for contestee 19,221 

Whole vote for contestant 19,170 

Majority for contestee 51 

Conceding all that was claimed by contestant concerning 
the two polls at which the alleged fraud was perpetrated, the 
vote stood: 

STATEMENT 3. 

Majority for contestee under Statement 1^. 45 

Deduct votes claimed by contestant at Martin's School-House and Archer's Fork. 26 

Majority for contestee 19 

Majority for contestee under Statement 2 51 

Deduct votes claimed by contestant at Martin's School-House and Archer's Fork. 26 

Majority for contestee 25 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 145 

In any aspect of the case contestee had a clear majority, but 
he was unseated on the 27th day of February by the Republican 
vote of 162 — less than a quorum — the speaker counting enough 
Democrats not voting to make out the necessary 166. 

Featherston vs. €ate. 

This case was reported February 19. 

The usual wholesale charges of fraud, intimidation, etc., 
were alleged; the sworn returns of the election officers were set 
aside, and in some cases wholly reversed upon the testimony of 
ignorant witnesses of both colors, much of it taken even outside 
the State and without notice to contestee, but which was clearly 
contradictory in itself, manifestly full of perjury brought out 
in forced answers to leading questions and wholly inconclusive 
if true. 

Contestant conceded that contestee received 224 votes at one 
precinct which returned 89 votes for contestant, and then placed 
on the stand a witness to overthrow his own concession. He 
claimed that he was entitled to 327 votes in this precinct, and 
here is the testimony to support it. 

Question 87. About how many Republican votes were cast here on the 6th of 
November last ? — Ans. There might have been 250 or 800 ; may be not so many. 

Ques. 88. How many of that number voted for Mr. Featherston ? — Ans. 92, 
I know, cast that red ticket for him. 

This witness also testified that of five candidates for governor since he has been a 
voter but one Republican had carried that township, and the Democrats the balance 
of the time. 

At the conclusion of his testimony, this witness was arrested for perjury in 
testifying that 93 votes were cast under his immediate observation for Mr. Feather- 
stone, in the face of the returns of the election officials. It was claimed on the part 
of the contestant that his witnesses were thus intimidated and prevented from 
proving his case in Lee county. 

The contestant sought to prove that the negroes feared to appear as witnesses 
because the attorney for contesteee had said, " If they swear lies here, I will put them 
in the penitentiary." The contestant's attorney, in his brief, gravely says : 

It was impossible to get a witness to go on the stand and testify, with the open 
declaration being made that he would be arrested for perjury if lie testified. 

The only testimony he could get was the statement that his 
witnesses knew of no danger in giving evidence, but that they 
thought that those who could establish his case would not like 
to be called, and they were not called in regard to this precinct. 
Here is the committee's conclusion : 

The result is, that the contestee must lose 234 votes returned for him, and the 
contestant must be allowed 3 more votes than were returned for him ; these two 
amount to 237, for which the contestant should receive credit. 

Election day was rainy and it was very difficult to get about. 
Many of contestant's witnesses testified that they tried to get to 
19 



146 V DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

the polls, but had to return home. In one very marshy precinct 
no polls opened, so contestant makes an enumeration of the 
negroes in the surrounding coimtry, and the committee counts 
them as having voted for him. 

Much of the testimony was taken in Memphis, without 
notice to contestee and without his having an opportunity to 
cross-examine the witnesses. Concerning a part of the testi- 
mony, the minority say : 

Perjury so striking and peculiar that it would be ridiculous if it were not 
pitiable, discredits more than one page. In such a way the contestant seeks to 
have the returns at Crawfordsville set aside and himself given the same vote as the 
electors for the Republican national ticket received at this precinct, although there 
was a regular Republican candidate for Representative, a resident of St. Francis 
county, who divided that vote with him. 

The clerk's certificate shows that the Republican electors received 330 votes, 
the Democratic electors 71 votes. It also shows that W. R. Barrett, for Represen- 
tative in Congress, received 160 votes ; L. P. Featherstone, 147 votes ; William H. 
Gate, 88 votes. The majority report has not been submitted to us, so that we do 
not know upon what claims the committee propose to unseat this member of Con- 
gress duly elected by the people of one of the largest and most populous, enter- 
prising, and intelligent of the districts of the State of Arkansas. 

The contestee comes here with a certified majority of 1,348. If all that is 
claimed for contestant in Phillips county were allowed, which is 181, that would 
leave him 1,167 ; and then if the votes in the seven townships of Crittenden 
county, not certified up by the clerk, were allowed as if there were no question of 
their legality — there would be 533 for Featherstone, less 150 for Cate, or 473 more 
to be taken from contestee's majority, 1,167, leaving him a majority of 595, to 
which he is rightfully entitled. 

But suppose the House should go a step further and give the contestee arbi- 
trarily the 169 votes cast for the true Republican, Barrett, at Crawfordsville, to 
punish the citizens of that town for their impoliteness, discourtesy, and rudeness 
to contestee, that even would not obliterate the majority of the sitting member, 
but only reduce it to 436. 

March 5th Mr. Cate was deprived of his seat, and the candi- 
date defeated at the polls was elected by the Republicans of the 
House to fill the vacancy. 

Mudd TS. Compton. 

This case was reported February 27. The contestant claimed: 

(1) That he was elected, on the face of the returns, by a plurality of three 
votes, receiving in all (as appears on the precinct returns) 16,383 votes, while the 
contestee, as appears from the same returns, received 16,380 votes, 

(8) That he was elected, if all the votes for both contestant and contestee 
improperly rejected are counted for them, respectively, and all votes improperly 
counted for them are deducted. 

(3) That at the first precinct of the third district of Anne Arundel county (the 
vote of which was returned for contestee 168, for contestant 33) the partisans of the 
contestee, by violence, threats, and intimidation, prevented 175 legal voters who 
wished to vote for contestant from doing so. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 147 

The vote, prior to the recount, stood as follows : 

Barnes Compton — official 16,000 

Add vote of 5th district of Charles county 191 

Add vote of 9th district of Charles county 89 

Total 16,280 

Sydney E. Mudd— official 15,819 

Add vote of 5th district of Charles county 274 

Add vote of 9th district of Charles county 158 

16,251 

Deduct one vote first precinct, Sixteenth ward 1 

16,250 

Plurality for contestee - 30 

After the recount it stood : 

Vote for sitting member as above 16,280 

Vote for contestant as above 16,250 

Deduct net loss on recount 19 

16,231 

Plurality for contestee after recount 49 

The effort of the contestant was to show, first, that there was an error of 28 
votes in Calvert county ; secondly, that votes were tendered for him which were re- 
fused, and should have been counted ; and thirdly, that there was in the second 
precinct of the third election district of Anne Arundel county such intimidation as 
should justify the throwing out of the vote of that precinct. 

THE RECOUNT. 

The recount was made under order of court, and there was 
nothing whatever to show that it was not conducted absolutely 
as provided by law. On the contrary, it was proved that it was 
so conducted. 

CALVERT COUNTY. 

All the judges in this county were Republicans and three 
months after the election, and when it was found that the vote in 
the district was close and the vote in the House closer, they un- 
dertook to overthrow from memory their own official acts com- 
mitted at the election and in the count, upon the ground that 
they had made a mistake. 

INTIMIDATION IN ANNE ARUNDEL. 

The effort was to reject this vote in the third election district 
in this county because of alleged intimidation of voters. 

The evidence shows on the part of the contestant — 

(1) That the only guns on the ground that day were some which had been 
brought there by persons, some colored and some white, who were on their way 
gunning, it being shown to be a long-established custom of many voters in that part 
of the county (white and colored) to make election day a day of hunting. That the 
only pistol-shots fired were by some young men, nowhere near the polls, who were 
shooting at a mark. 



148 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

(2) That instead of it being true that there were any such acts of violence as 
were calculated to intimidate persons of ordinary firmness, the true state of the 
case is just this : 1. Not long after the polls were opened (they were opened at 8 
A. M.) and after some few white men had voted, a body of colored men, numbering 
about 100 men, marched in a body to the polling place, and after some 15 of them 
had voted, 2 of their number, were by some young man standing there pushed or 
shoved out of the line, and told they had no right to vote there, and thereupon Hall, 
whom the evidence shows had taken an active part in distributing tickets among 
the colored voters, and was looked up to as a leader of the negroes, ordered all the 
negroes from the polls, which order they obeyed ; that this order was given to all 
at the polls and afterwards to all who were on the way there, and that about 175 
therefore abstained from voting. 

(3) That all the persons at all engaged in this " intimidation," were, at the 
highest number mentioned by any witness, three. 

The testimony of Zachariah Gray, a constable, who was there all day, shows 
that the only pistol fired was at a mark 100 yards from the polls, and that he 
stopped it because it frightened the horses. 

(4) That according to the contesant's own proof, there were from 50 to 100 
colored voters in line, when the two men, Hall and Sampson, were shoved or pushed 
out of line ; and this number was further increased shortly after, as most did not 
leave the grounds till after 12 o'clock, and there were 161 on the grounds during 
that time. 

(5) That according to the overwhelming mass of evidence, as given by the con- 
testant's own witnesses, no blows were struck at any time, no firearms used or 
shown, no threats of personal violence made, not even the hunting guns had then 
been brought to the grounds when the trouble with Hall and Sampson took place. 

(6) According to the contestant's own evidence none of the 175 votes were 
ever tendered to the judges ; on the contrary the voters admit that they refused to 
tender their votes. 

At the close of the polls on the day of election all the judges of election, with- 
out protest or demur of any kind, signed the certificate of election, setting forth the 
holding of the election and the number of votes each candidate had received. 

And on the day after the election, Hines, Republican judge, went to Annapolis 
with the ballot box and election returns, and there told Mr. Sprigg Harwood, the 
clerk of the circuit court for Anne Arundel county, to whom he delivered his re- 
turns and box, " that there had been no trouble about the polls ; everything has 
passed off peaceably and quietly." 

The reason the negroes did not vote was that Hall ordered 
them not to, and the reason that he ordered them not to was 
that he might claim that they were disfranchised and then have 
them counted by the committee in the proportion of about three 
to one. 

Mr. Compton was unseated March 20th, and Mr. Mudd is 
now occupying his seat. 

In his argument before the House, just before he was turned 
out, Mr. Compton said : 

And now, Mr. Speaker, what conclusion do the gentlemen upon the other side 
reach in reference to this district ? Why, sir, they reach the very logical conclu- 
sion that because 175 colored men failed or refused to vote, made no effort to vote 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 149* 

did not try to vote, therefore 200 other men who did try to vote and who did vote 
should have their votes thrown out and not counted. I want to put one simple 
question to these gentlemen. I do not mean any reflection, I do not mean any- 
thing unkindly, but I ask you gentlemen, honestly and squarely, to come around a 
corner here with me and tell me whether, if there had been 168 votes for Mudd and 
82 votes for me instead of 168 for me and 32 for Mudd, you would ever have thrown 
out that district? [Laughter.] Now, answer that question— just a whisper 
between you and me. [Laughter.] 

Is not that the milk in that cocoanut ? Is it not because you know that unless 
you do throw out that district, the seat, to which I was honestly elected, is mine 
and cannot be taken from me ? 

Mr. CoMPTON. I only want to say, after thanking my colleagues [Mr. McComas 
and Mr. Stockbridge] for the request which they have made in my behalf, that I 
suppose the guillotine is ready and the ax is sharpened. If that is so, sir, the victim 
is ready, and while he will fall with the hot breath of an earnest protest upon his 
lips he will fall without a quiver. I am made, I hope to God, of that kind of stuff 
which does not know how to " crook the pregnant hinges of the knee that thrift 
may follow fawning." [Great applause on the Democratic side.] I would not 
flatter Neptune for his trident, or Jove for his power to thunder. 

Thank God, sir, I will resign and leave this office, as I have every other that I 
have ever filled, with clean hands and a conscience void of offense towards any 
one. [Applause.] I have sought, and if, as my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Dalzell] said, I have won, the respect and esteem of gentlemen on the other side, 
I am proud of it ; I have a right to be proud of it, for I have won it at no cost of 
principle. 

But Mr. Speaker and gentlemen, make no mistake. I am a Democrat of the 
strictest sect. [Applause on the Democratic side.] I believe, and I know that 
every honest and fearless and honorable man will give me credit for it, and for the 
others I care nothing. 

I believe, in my cool judgment and on my conscience, that the preservation of 
American liberty, of the rights of the American people — all of them, not black only, 
but white, too — depend upon the enforcement of those principles which are 
inscribed upon the platform and record of the Democratic party. [Applause.] 
The motto on that flag as I see it born aloft, and always in the front, high, ad- 
vanced, inscribed thereon "Justice to all and special privileges to none " is the 
shibboleth under which I propose to live and die. [Applause.] 

Now, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, I take my seat, believing and 
knowing that my account here, as best my poor abilities have enabled me to per- 
form my duties, is settled, square and correct, here and yonder. I ask naught of 
man, but what as an honest man I am entitled to. Justice is all I ask. And what 
I say to you in conclusion is simply this : fiat justitia^ mat ccelum. If I am enti- 
tled to the seat, be men enough to give it to me ; if I am not, on your consciences, 
I have no fault to find. 

I return, sir, to a people whose confidence and affection, thank God ! those of 
them whose good will is worth having, I feel in my heart of hearts I have and 
hold to-day ; to an humble and unpretentious home where, thank God ! happiness 
prevails. I go, if go I must, without a regret, because I have no self-reproach; 
and I tell you here and now, " exiled, more joy" I shall feel than any tin Caesar, 
with a whole House of Representatives at his heels. [Loud applause on the Dem- 
ocratic side.] 



150 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK, 



Threet ts. Clarke. 

In this case, reported February 21, contestee was permitted 
to retain his seat. The returns were as follows: 



Counties. 


Candidates. 




R. H. Clarke. 


Frank H. Threet. 


Scattering. 


(~!Ti notifi w 


1,383 
1,564 
3,480 
3,230 
1,440 
507 


633 
1,234 

1,847 

2,408 

766 

217 




Clarke 




Marengo 




Mobile 




Monroe 




Washington 


2 








U,593 


7,105 





Plurality for contestee, 4488. 

Contestant in his brief said : 

At every beat or voting precinct two or more leading Republicans would give 
out the Republican ballots to their Republican friends, and two or more trusted 
Republicans would watch and witness that they were voted ; each kept an accurate 
account of the number of tickets he gave out and the number he saw voted. The 
contestant put these witnesses on the stand to prove these facts, and the vote 
proven was almost in the inverse ratio of the vote as counted by the precinct oflQcers. 

Such is the status of the present contest and mainly the character of the testi- 
mony of the contestant. 

It appears upon examination of the evidence that the contestant has strictly 
confined himself to the method of proof described in his brief. 

Contestant must have been very much disappointed, as he 
had seen more than one case decided upon just such charges, sup- 
ported by perjury. However, the necessary perjury was not 
forthcoming in this case, and the committee conclude : 

After a fair and liberal consideration of this case, the committee is of the opin- 
ion that the contestant has failed to prove the charges contained in his notice, and 
his right to the seat now occupied by his adversary. 

Waddill Ts. Wise. 

Contestant claimed that 722 voters in Jackson ward in Rich- 
mond, Va. , were prevented from voting by obstructions placed 
in their way. The official returns show the following results : 



Klchmond City. 

Manchester 

King William... 

Hanover 

New Kent 

Henrico 

Chesterfield 

Goochland 



Total. 



15,608 



Wise. 


Waddill. 


8,040 


6,334 


892 


740 


739 


1,099 


1,646 


1,565 


365 


705 


1,688 


2,340 


1,567 


1,586 


671 


988 



15,347 



Wise 15,608 

Waddill 15*347 



Majority for George D. Wise. 



261 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 151 

There was no claim that the alleged voters actually tendered 
their votes and that they were rejected. There was an unoffi- 
cial count of these who said they wanted to vote, and as the 
proof was strong to the effect that the Republican officers and 
ticket holders had delayed the voting, the Democratic members 
of the committee recommended that the election be sent back to 
the people. 

There was much evidence tending to show that the Repub- 
licans had determined before the election to set up their claim of 
obstruction, and that they actually proceeded to obstruct voters. 
There was also a charge of intimidation, but no evidence was 
introduced to sustain it and nothing was said about it in the 
argument of contestant's counsel. 

The Republican committee reported against Wise and in 
favor of seating Waddill, which report was adopted by the 
House April 11. 

Mr. Wise has been renominated, but Mr. Waddill declined 
again to try conclusions with him. 

]IIcI>uffie vs. Turpin. 

This case fully compensates for any little departure that the 
committee may have made from the rule of unseating the Dem- 
ocrat and seating the Republican. The report of the committee 
says : 

The fourth district of Alabama is composed of the counties of Dallas, Hale, 
Lowndes, Perry and Wilcox. At the election held November 6, 1888, Louis W. 
Turpin was the Democratic candidate for Representative in the Fifty-first Congress, 
and John Y . McDufiie was the Republican candidate. 

The result of the election, as certified to the Secretary of State, was as follows . 



Counties. 


Ti.rpin. 


McDuffle. 


Dallas 


5,705 
3,170 
2,131 
2,961 
4,811 


1,706 


Hale 


1,220 
1,442 

650 


Lowndes 


Perry 


Wilcox 


607 








Total 


18,778 


5,625 







Turpin 18,778 

McDuffle 5,625 



Majority for Turpin 13,153 

It then proceeds by devious ways to reach the conclusion 
that McDuffie's majority was at least 5,000. 

The evidence was of the same sort that was rejected in 
Threet vs. Clarke, but the contestant set himself no limits in 
charging fraud and producing "evidence.'* 

It was charged that officers were wrongfully removed and 
others appointed. 

In many places in the South it is impossible to find Repub- 
licans of sufficient intelligence to act as officers of election. 



152 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK:. 

Here is the evidence concerning this. Judge A. E. Coffee : 

Q. At whose instance or request was this second meeting of the board, and 
at whose instance or for what reason where those changes made ? Please state 
fully and particularly. A. The sheriff and one of 'he Republican inspectors and 
other gentlemen, whose names I can not remember now, informed me that a num- 
ber of the Republican inspectors who had been appointed declined to serve as such 
inspectors, on the grounds that they were school-teachers and did not want to mix 
up in politics ; and the board of supervisors was called together to remedy this de- 
fect in the list of inspectors. 

Q. Was there no other reason or excuse made by those persons who 
communicated those facts to you why those changes should be made ? If so, what 
reason or excuse was given by them ? Please state fully. A. No other motive 
prompted me to make the changes except as above stated. 

Again : 

A. Mr. Turpin stated to me on his arrival here, on the 28th or 29th of 
September, 1888, that he was perfectly satisfied with the list of inspectors that had 
been appointed and that he desired that there should be a school-teacher or other 
intelligent Republican representative on the board of inspectors in every beat in 
the district and he did not solicit any changes through me or to my knowledge. 

This witness was introduced by the contestant himself, and his credibility 
thereby vouched for by the contestant. 

Judge Coffee also testified that the contestant expressed his 
satisfaction with the officers before the election. 

UNAUTHORIZED POLLS, ETC. 

The law required the polls to be open by nine o'clock, and 
in one precinct only one inspector being present, he, as in duty 
bound, appointed two others, one a Republican, the other of 
unknown politics. They then proceeded to hold the election. 

Sometime after this poll was opened a colored man associated two other col- 
ored men with him, and without a shadow of authority opened another polling 
place and received votes. 

There is no attack made on the manner of conducting the regular poll or the 
correctness of the returns of the election officers, but on the contrary the witnesses 
introduced by the contestee prove that the election was fair and that the returns 
were honest. 

The majority count the votes cast at this outside, irregular, and unauthorized 
poll. They question and discard returns from regular polling places because the 
officers were all Democrats, but in this instance they count the returns from an 
irregular and unauthorized polling place made by men, all of whom were Repub- 
licans, unsworn, ignorant, and unlettered. 

Contestee took the following testimony : 

Q. What is your name, your age, and where do you reside, and how 
long have you so resided ? A. William H. Merrett is my name ; my age is 
thirty-four years; I reside in Lowndesboro beat. No. 18, Lowndes county, Ala. ; 
have resided there ten years. 

Q. Did you attend an election held for your beat at Lowndesboro on the 6th 
day of November, 1888, to elect a Congressman to represent this district in the 
Fifty-first Congress; and, if so, in what capacity did you attend? A. I did attend 
said election, and in the capacity of register. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 153 

Q. Did you see anything there that day that indicated anything other than a 
free ballot and a fair count ? A. I did not. 

Q. Judging from the votes cast at your precinct for several elections past, 
either State or Federal, is your beat Democratic or Kepublican ? A. Democratic, 
by a large majority. 

Cross-examination by W. C. Grtffen, attorney for contestant : 

Q. You say according to the votes cast there for the last several years past, 
you say that your beat is largely Democratic ; can you say of your own knowl- 
edge that a majority of the votes cast at those elections were Democratic? A. I 
can say they were Democratic, having repeatedly acted as inspector both in State 
and Federal elections. 

Lowndesboro Precinct : Two witnesses attack this poll. One was a Republican 
ticket-holder. Here is the gist of his evidence : Asked how many tickets he gave 
out he replied : " Myself and four or five others issued, I suppose, about 350 or 
360 tickets." 

Q. Were you about or near the polls during the time of voting? State 
whether or not these tickets and others you were issuing were voted or handed 
into the inspector. A. I was near the polls all day. Right on the grounds. I 
seen a great part of them handed in ; I didn't see them all. 

Asked how many of the 350 or 360 tickets he had supposed to have been issued, 
were issued by him, he replied : " I suppose I issued one-third of them." 

The returns in this precinct gave Turpin 320, McDuffie 41, but upon this tes- 
timony the Republican committee set aside the returns and gives Turpin 41, 
McDuflaie 320, just reversing the result, upon the testimony of this single wit- 
ness — a Republican partisan. 

Here is the sort of testimony that was disregarded. Hon. A. E. Coffee : 

Q. What is your name, your age, and where do you reside, and how long have 
you resided in this county ? A. My name is A. E. Coffee, judge of probate court 
of Lowndes county ; I am forty years old ; I reside in Lowndes county, Ala. ; I 
have resided in the county about twenty-five years. 

Q. Please tell what you know about the election that was held on the 6th day 
of November, 1888, at Lowndesboro precinct, held for the purpose of electing a 
Congressman to represent this district in the Fifty-first Congress, and Presidential 
election ? A. I voted at Lowndesboro precinct on the 6th day of November, 1888, 
and was about or near the polls from 12 o'clock, noon, until 5 o'clock p. m. I saw 
a great many colored voters cast their ballots for L. W. Turpin, including the lead- 
ing and most intelligent colored men of the beat. The colored men of Lowndes- 
boro beat have affiliated with the Democratic party ever since 1882. I knew the 
colored men voted the Democratic ticket, because they showed me their tickets, 
and I saw them deposited in the ballot-box. 

Q. Have you not an extensive acquaintance and knowledge of the colored 
voters of this county as regards to thei# preference for voting ? If so, state 
whether or not they vote solidly for one party. A. I have considerable knowledge 
of the political predilection of the colored men of Lowndes county ; they have 
never been solidly Republican since 1882 ; they have been divided on all opposing 
candidates in the county since 1882 ; in 1886 they voted almost solidly for the 
regular Democratic nominees against their opponents. 

Q. It seems there were two boxes from each of the following beats, to wit : 
Farmerville, Sandy Ridge, Hayneville, Letohatchee, and St. Clair. Upon what 
grounds did the board of supervisors refuse to open and count the box from each 
of these beats sent up by the Republican inspectors alone ? A. On the grounds 
that the returns of an election held by the regularly appointed inspectors were be- 
fore the county board of supervisors, and under the law tbey counted the returns 
of the regularly qualified inspectors and refused to count any other. 

Q. Do you know the general character and standing of the Democratic in- 
spectors that held said election ia each beat ia this county ? If so, state what it 

20 



154 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

is. A. I do ; almost without exception they are of the best men in the county in 
point of integrity, and all those qualities that go to make a good citizen. 

Dr. Shirley Bragg, health officer, confirms this testimony : 

Steep Creek precinct. — The committee rely upon the oft-told story that a certain 
number of Republican tickets were issued, therefore a corresponding number of 
votes were cast for McDuffie and must be counted for him. 

One of the witnesses upon whose testimony the contestant mainly relies was 
so drunk, that, before the cross-examination was concluded, it was found necesary 
to suspend until the next day so that he might sober up. 

The testimony of this witness is specially mentioned and approved by the report of 
the majority. 

I is shown by the contestant's, witness, W. N. Wimo, that the Democratic offi- 
cers at this precinct were men " whose characters are as good as any in the State of 
Alabama ; that they are among the best citizens." 

Return vote : Turpin 146, McDuffie 62. 

Counted by committee : Turpin 37, McDuffie 171. 

Church Hill Precinct. The election at this precinct was conducted by two 
Democrats and one Republican. Again comes the usual cry that a given number 
of Republican tickets were distributed and they were necessarily cast, and one 
witness is relied upon to prove this predicate of the report of the majority. 

On behalf of the contestee the testimony of two witnesses was taken and we 
here quote it: 

Q. What is your name, age and in what precinct, county, and district do you 
reside ? A. H. B. Lever ; forty-eight years of age, and live in Church Hill beat, in 
Lowndes county, fourth district of Alabama. 

Q. Were all the inspectors in said election Democrats, and warm friends and 
ardent supporters of L. W. Turpin ? A. No. Two were Democrats and one was 
a Republican. 

Q. Who received the ballot from the electors, and who deposited in tne ballot- 
box ? Was the ballot so deposited in the ballot-box the identical ballot so handed 
in by the electors ? Could such ballot have been changed either by the inspector 
receiving it or by the one depositing it without your knowledge ? Was it so 
changed ? A J. R. Dudly received the ballots and handed them in to Captain Black, 
who put them in the ballot-box. Mr. Dudly or Captain Black could not have 
changed the ballots without my knowing it. They were not changed, and were the 
identical ballots cast by the electors. 

Q. Was the box in which the ballots were deposited kept locked during the 
day ; and if so, who had the key ; did not the Republican inspector before any 
votes was deposited in the box carefully examine and lock it ? Was any box filled 
with tickets during the time the polls were open or after the close thereof substi- 
tuted for the regular ballot-box ? A. The box was kept locked. He examined the 
box ; locked it; put the key in his pocket until he opened the box to count. There 
was no box only the regular one. 

Q. Were the ballots counted by the inspectors the identical ballots that were 
cast by the electors? A. They were. 

Q. Did the inspectors in making such count read tickets having on them the 
name of John V. McDuffie as if they were the name L. W. Turpin ? A. No, they 
did not. 

Q. Was the count made by the inspectors a fair, just and honest one ? A. It 
was a fair count, just and honest one. 

Q. Were the returns made out by the inspectors and forwarded to the sheriff 
correct and accurate ? A. They were correct. 

George Emest, deputy sheriff, and others confirm this. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 155 

Returns : Turpin 117, McDuffie 63. 

Committee count : Turpin 13, McDuffie 166. 

Eaynesmlle Precinct. At this precinct an election was regularly held at the 
court-house, the usual place for holding elections. It was conducted by two of 
the regularly appointed inspectors and by a third selected in accordance with the 
law to supply the place of the third appointee, who did not attend ; two were 
Democrats and one was a Republican. 

The poll was opened before 9 o'clock, as required hy the statute. 

A colored Republican, who claimed to be an inspector by reason of an appoint- 
ment which had been revoked more than thirty days before the election, upon his 
own motion associated with him two other colored Republicans and opened an- 
other poll some distance from the court-house, and received the ballots of all those 
who presented themselves. 

The only attack made on the returns from the regular polling place is that 
made by the leader in the outside movement, (W. E. Carson,) who says that the 
colored Republican inspector (Tony Smith) at the regular polling place, was a man 
"whose character for sobriety was bad, and that he was nearly all the time 
drunk ; " to this Smith replies that Carson " is a t«ramp and beats people out of 
everything he can." 

W. E. Haynes testified : 

Q. State what W. E. Carson said to you, if anything, about being bulldozed 
and forced to sign the returns of the retended election held at Hayneville on the 
6th day of November, 1888. A. He told me the next ^ay after the election that 
J. V. McDuffie advised separate boxes run in certain beats and that J. V. McDuffie 
and his gang bulldozed and forced the colored inspectors of these- beats to hold 
separate elections ; he said he refused to sign the returns of his box until the day 
after the election, and did so under threats of McDuffie's gang. 

At the regular precinct the Democrats voted, but the Republicans declined; 
the returns were 158 for Turpin and none for McDuffie ; but the majority of the 
committee held that Turpin only received 54 votes, while McDuffie received 273 
votes. They count every vote which was cast for McDuffie at this outside place, 
and give Turpin only 54 votes of the 158 which he received at the regular polling 
place. 

St, Clair Precinct. The evidence as to this precinct shows that the election 
was regularly held by the duly appointed inspectors, but other persons, entirely 
unauthorized, opened polls at another place and proceeded, without registration 
book, to go through the farce of receiving the ballot of every man who offered to 
vote, and, according to the statement of one of these persons, 214 ballots were 
cast for McDuffie and none for Turpin, and under this state of facts the committee 
count 214 votes for McDuffie. 

We refer here to the testimony of the witness, upon which this most extra^ 
ordinary action of the majority is based : (Robert Adams, witness for contestant.) 

Q. Did you have a registration list or book, furnished by A. E. Coffee, judge of 
probate, to the inspectors of each beat ? A. I did not. 

Q. If you had no register of the voters how did you know who had heretofore 
registered, and were therefore qualified to vote and who were not ? A. I asked 
them before I took their vote. 

Q. Then the only evidence that you had of a voter having registered and 
thereby qualifying himself for voting was what the voter said himself ? A. It was. 

Q. You stated in your direct examination that you got the registration papers 
from J. V. McDuffie ; do you mean the papers on which to register new voters or 
the papers on which to make a poll-list ? A. To register new voters. 



156 DEMOCRATIC , CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Q. What did you do with the ballots that were' cast there that day ? A. I have 
them at home now. 

This was a private affair with which the public has nothing to do ; 

Fa/rmersmlle Precinct. Here again we find two polls were opened. At 8 
-o'clock one of the regularly appointed inspectors associated with him a Republi- 
can and a Democrat, and they opened the polls and conducted the election. 

J. D. Moorer testifies : 

Q. What is your name and your age, and where do you reside, and how long 
liave you resided there ? A. J. D Moorer, Jr.; my age is thirty-one years ; I live 
in Farmersville Beat No. 5, Lowndes county, Ala.; I have resided there all my life. 

Q. Did you act as inspector at your precinct of an election on the 6th day of 
November,1888, for electors for President and Vice-President, and for Represen- 
tative in the Fifty-first Congress of the United States from the Fourth Con- 
gressional district of Alabama ? A. I did. 

Q. By whom were you notified of your appointment as inspector, and about 
what time ? A. Mr. Haynes, the sheriff of Lowndes county, notified me ; I don't 
Tecollect what time it was, but it was about ten days before the election. 

Q. Who acted with you as inspectors at that election ? A. D. G. Moorer and 
Harrison Coleman. 

Q. To what political party did these parties belong ? A. Harrison Coleman 
was a Republican, and myself and D. G. Moorer were Democrats. 

Q. What time on the morning of November the 6th, 1888, did you open the 
polls ? A. It was a little after 8 o'clock. 

Q. How long did you continue to hold open the polls, and when did you close 
the polls ? A. We held it open from the opening to the usual hour of closing ; I 
think it was 5 o'clock. 

Q. Did you make the returns of the votes cast there that day, and to what 
oflSlcer did you deliver the return^? A. We did, and delivered them to the bailiff. 

(The witness was handed a paper supposed to be a certificate or returns of the 
election, and was asked to look at this certificate and state if it is a correct copy of 
the certificate or returns ; and also state how many votes were cast for L. W. 
Turpin for a Representative to the Fifty-first Congress, and how many for J. V. 
IMcDuflBe as Representative to Fifty-first Congress.) 

A. It is a correct copy of the returns. There was 26 votes cast there that day, 
and 26 for Turpin and none for McDuffie. 

Q. Do you know of any other persons holding or attempting to hold in that 
precinct an election on that day ? A. I do. 

Q. What time, if you know, did they open the poll or begin to hold their 
€lection ? Was it before you and your other inspectors had opened your polls ? 
A. I think it was about 9 o'clock, and after we had opened our polls. 

Q. Can you state about how long after you opened your polls ? A. It was 
about half an hour or three-quarters after we opened. 

Q. At what place did they hold their election? A. In Mr. Youngblood's 
ootton yard or lot. 

Q. At what point did you and your inspectors hold your election ? A. We 
held it in Youngblood's store, in his office. 

P. J. Rust, says : 

My age is forty-six years ; I reside in Farmersville Beat No. 5, Lowndes 
county, Ala.; I have resided there near eleven years. 

Q. Did you act as inspector or in any other capacity at your precinct at an 
election on the 6th day of November, 1888, for electors for President and Vice- 
President, and Representative in the Fifty-first Congress from this district ; if so, 
in what capacity ? A. I did, as United States supervisor. 

Q. Who were the State inspectors of the election that day ? A. J. D. Moorer, 
Jr., D. G. Moorer, and Harrison Coleman. 

Q. What time on the morning of the election were the polls opened in that 
beat ? A. Between 8 and 9 o'clock. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 157 

Q. How long did you continue to hold open and when did you close the 
polls ? A. All day and until 5 o'clock in the evening, 

(The certificate known as Exhibit 2 was handed to the witness and asked did 
he see and supervise and look at said exhibit and state whether it is a correct copy 
of the returns.) A. It is. 

Q. How many votes were cast there that day, and how many were cast for L. 
W. Turpin, and how many for J. V. McDuffie for Congress ? A. 26 in all, and 26 
for L. W. Turpin and none for McDuffie. 

This testimony is not contradicted in any particular by the witnesses for the 
contestant. 

Without reason or excuse certain colored Republicans go through the form of 
receiving the ballots of all who present themselves, without evidence as to their 
right to vote, and the committee count 40 votes for the contestant at this so-called 
polling place. 

Conceding all that is claimed by the majority of the committee respecting the 
other precincts of this county, the vote will stand as follows : 





Turpin. 


McDuffle. 


dounty vote as returned 


2,131 
249 


1,442 
19 








Deduct Fort Deposit 


1,882 
60 


1,433 








1,822 
20 






204 








1,842 
1,627 


1,687 




215 









HALE COUNTY. 

Greensborough Precinct At this precinct a colored. Republican swears lie 
issued a large number of Republican tickets, and two other colored Republicans 
swear they took a list of 697 men who said they voted the Republican ticket. 
This is all the testimony for the contestant. 

On behalf of the contestee the following witnesses testified : 

First, Joshua Clark, colored Republican inspector. 

He swears he received every ballot that was voted, and saw it put in the ballot- 

i)0X. 

He swears that he saw the ballots counted, and he examined each one to see 
whether the names were properly called. 

He swears that the tickets were fairly and honestly counted, and that Turpin 
received every vote that was returned for him. 

Then he testifies as follows : 

23. Q. Do not a great many of the colored people get tickets from the person 
who issues Republican tickets, and change said tickets for Democratic tickets, and 
TOte the Democratic ticket secretively ? A. Yes, sir. 

24. Q. "Why do a great many of the colored people vote the Democratic ticket 
secretively? A. Because they feared to do it, and are 'buked about it by some of 
the leaders of the colored people. 

25. Q. Did you see any of the colored people on the 6th day of November, 
1888, as they were coming to the polls with one or two tickets in their hands ? A. 
I seen a good many of the colored people come inside of the court-house and put 
the ticket that they had in their hand into their pocket, and take one out of their 
pocket and bring it to me to vote. 



158 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

26. Q. Were the polls held at the court-house? A. It was. 

27. Q. About how many colored people did you see, as they came in the 
court-house, put the ticket that they had in their hands into their pockets and take 
another ticket out of their pockets ? A. I don't know how many, but reckon I 
saw fully fifty or a hundred do it. 

28. Q. Did you watch them to see whether they changed their tickets ? A. 
No, sir ; I was not particularly watching them. 

This witness is unimpeached and his testimony would seem to be conclusive 
as to the fairness of the election at this precinct. 

There was a colored Republican Federal supervisor present and he " agreed 
that it was done fairly and squarly." {Record, 547.) 

Second. Marcellus V. Hill. {Record, 400.) 

1. Q. What is your name, age, where do you reside, and how long have you 
so resided ? A. Marcellus V, Hill ; I am thirty-three years old ; I live in beat ISTo. 
4, Hale county ; have lived there all my life. 

2. Q. What is your occupation ? A. Farming. 

3. Q. Do you own any property ? If so, what ? A. Yes, sir ; land and stock ; 
I own 185 acres of land. 

4. Q. What race do you belong to ? A. To the colored race. 

5. Q. Where were you on the 6th of November, 1888 ? A. At Greensboro, 
at the election. 

6. Q. Did you get a ticket from Mathew Morse or Dave Jones on that day; 
and, if yea, what did you do with it ? A.I got one from Mathew Morse — a Re- 
publican ticket — I gave it to Capt. Cad Jones. 

7. Q. What ticket did you vote, if any, on that day? A. I voted the Demo- 
cratic ticket straight out. 

8. Q. Do not a good many of the colored people of your beat get Republican 
tickets from the person issuing them and then vote the Democratic ticket ? A. They 
say they did. 

9. Q. Name those whom you heard say that they received a Republican ticket 
and then voted the Democratic ticket. A. Tom Hamilton, Mose Hamilton and 
Stephen Hamilton. Those are about all I had any talk with about it. 

T. W. De Yampert : 

1. Q. What is your name and age, and where do you reside, and how long 
have you so resided ? A. My name is T. W. De Yampert ,' I am fifty-three years 
of age ; I reside in Greensboro, beat No. 4 ; I have so resided for the last ten years. 

2. Q. Where were you on the 6th day of last November ? A. I was in beat 
No. 4 at the election, and acted, by request of Mr. R. B. Douglas, assistant regis- 
trar, as registrar for that day. 

3. Q. About how many colored electors registered there that day ? A. About 
seventy-five or eighty. 

4. Q. Did you issue any Democratic tickets to the colored electors of said 
beat on that day? A. I gave Democratic tickets to all I registered except four or 
five. I don't now remember more than two or three who said they did not want 
Democratic tickets. 

5. Q. What name was on said tickets as a candidate for Congress from the 
fourth district of Alabama? A. Louis W. Turpin. 

6. Q. What did the electors to whom you issued tickets, as before stated, do 
with said tickets ? A. I am certain and satisfied that some of them voted the said 
tickets, as they carried them directly from me into the court-house where the 
ballot-box was, I did not watch all of them, and consequently could not say as to 
all of them. 

Repuhlican votes are always»counted upon such evidence, so, of course, these 
ought to be counted for Turpin. 

CedarviUe Precinct There is the old story of the number of Republican 
tickets issued, and that they were therefore voted, but the evidence shows ex- 
pressly and circumstantially that the returns were correct. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 



159 



Van Haibriglit testified : 

1. Q. What is your name, age, and where do you reside, and how long have you 
so resided? A. My name s Van Hainbright •,► I am forty-seven years old I live 
in Hale county. Beat No. 7, commonly called Cedarville beat ; I have so resided for 
the past twenty-five years. 

2. Q. Are you a Democrat or a Republican ? A. I am a Republican. 

3. Q. Where were you on the 6th day of November, 1888 ? A. I was at Cedar- 
ville when the election was held. 

4. Q What were you doing there? A. I was one of the inspectors of the 
election. 

5. Q. Were you present during the entire day? A. Yes, sir. 

6. Q. Who were the other inspectors ? A. Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Percy 
Waller. 

7. Q. When did you count the votes or ballots ? A. Immediately after the 
polls were closed. 

8. Q. Were you not present while the votes or ballots were being counted, and 
did you not assist in counting them ? A. I was present and assisted in counting 
the iDallots. 

9. Q. Were not the said ballots honestly and fairly counted as required by 
law ? A. Yes, sir. 

10. Q. Are you a colored man or a white man ? A. I am a colored man. 

Conceding the other precincts of this county to be as claimed by the com- 
mittee, the vote will stand : 





Turpin. 


McDuffle. 




3,170 

362 


1,220 
169 


Deduct Hollow Sauare as returned 






^dd Hollow Sauare as counted bv committee. 


2,808 
59 


1,051 
475 








2,867 
1,526 


1,526 


Majority for Turpln 


1,341 





This was corroborated by several other witnesses, who also 
testified to the fact that the negroes had and deposited Demo- 
cratic tickets. 

WILCOX COUNTY. 

Here is the same old farce of making up returns from the 
testimony of illiterate negroes. In every case the election offi- 
cers, one of whom is nearly always a Kepublican, and other 
reputable citizens of both parties, contradict the whole story of 
the contestant's witnesses. Yet the official returns are set aside 
and the committee makes returns favorable to contestant. 

Counting all the precincts of this county except those to which this ridiculous 
testimony relates as claimed by the majority, the vote of the county will stand : 





Turpin. 


McDuffle. 




4,811 


607 




Peduct : 

Snow Hill 

Bethel 


464 
385 
116 
200 


105 
15 


White Hall 


36 


Boiling Springs .,,, 


42 




1,165 


188 




3,646 


419 



160 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 





Turpln. 


McDuffle. 


Add vote as counted by committee from— 

Snow Hill 


82 
57 
47 

42 


AAfi 


Bethel 


343 


Wnite Hall 


84 


Boiling Springs , 


200 








228 


1,072 


Majority for Turpin 


3,874 
1,491 


1,491 








3,383 






* 



PERRY COUNTY. 

A repetition of the farce, and of a priyate poll when the reg- 
ular poll was open, with a flat and emphatic contradiction by- 
officers of election and reputable citizens of both parties. A fair 
example may be seen in the 

BurnsmlU Precinct. — Here contestant claimed 435 votes and admitted 60 for 
Turpin. The returns give Turpin 475 and McDuffie 23. The committee give Turpin 
60 and McDuffie 388. 

The testimony shows that some Republicans claimed to have stolen a ballot-box 
from a room adjoining the polling-place. No witness who saw such box is called, 
nor is there any evidence to show whether, in fact, the stolen article was a ballot- 
box or a hen-coop. We have the usual story of two colored men, one issuing tickets 
and the other keeping a list of the names, and two others watching the voters to 
see that the tickets issued were voted ; but the other watchers are not put on the 
witness stand. The list-keeper and issuer are shown to have been where they could 
not vSee the polling ; the election was legally conducted by officers appointed ac- 
cording to law, and one colored Republican inspector and the colored Republican 
United States supervisor both testify to their close and vigilant attention to the 
conduct of the election and to the truth and correctness of the count and returns. 
These witnesses are corroborated by the two white inspectors, but the majority of 
the committee disregard these facts, and count as above mentioned for McDuffie. 

Allowing, however, the utmost that could under any circum- 
stances be claimed, the vote in the district would stand: 

RECAPITULATION. 



Lowndes county. 

Hale county 

Wilcox county... 

Perry county 

Dallas county — 



Total. 



Counties. 



Turpln's majority. 



Turpin. 



1,842 
3.867 
3,874 
2,819 
5,496 



16,878 
7,794 



9,104 



McDuffle. 



1,627 
1,526 
1,491 
609 
2,541 



7,794 



The committee decided that the contestant had a majority 
of at least 5,000, and turned Turpin out, seating McDuffie. 



CONTESTED EI.ECTIONS. 161 

liangston vs. Tenable. 

Reported June 16, in favor of the contestant. There were 
three candidates in the fourth Virginia district, to wit : E. C. 
Venable (Dem.) ; Jno. M. Langston (Ind. Rep.), and R. W. 
Arnold (Rep. nominee). Yenable received 13,298 votes ; Lang- 
ston 12,657, and Arnold 3,207. Plurality for Venable, 641. 

The ground was the familiar one of fraud in the city of 
Petersburg and elsewhere in the district. Langston was a bolter 
from the rule of Mahone, the Republican boss of Virginia. Him- 
self a negro, he drew the color line rigidly, and made speeches 
throughout the district denouncing Arnold, Mahone and others 
because they were Caucasians. 

The animosity of the campaign was between the two fac- 
tions of the Republican party. Many prominent negroes and 
other Republicans wrote letters and addresses to the voters of 
the district denouncing Langston. Among these were Fred 
Douglass, now minister to Hayti, Perry Carson, the negro boss 
of the District of Columbia, R. L. Singleton, President of th^ 
Virginia Republican Association, General Mahone, who took 
Langston' s conduct as '^ a personal insult," et al. 

The colored men who supported Arnold were maltreated by 
the supporters of Langston. 

The charges of fraud were against Republican officials almost 
entirely. 

Two Republican members of the committee refused to vote 
in favor of the report against Venable ; two others were absent 
when the report was voted on in committee. 

There was the usual testimony as to the distribution of Re- 
publican tickets. For instance, this summary of evidence : 

That Townes, an ignorant colored man wlio could not read, issued 156 tickets 
without any knowledge as to what was printed on them, and 150 colored men who 
could not read voted them without knowing what tickets they were voting, except 
what Townes, equally as ignorant as themselves, told them. Upon this statement 
it is proposed to reject the returns from this precinct, and "readjust" them by 
counting all these votes and many more for the contestant. 

What a travesty upon justice ! 

The sworn declarations of the three judges, two clerks and two Federal 
supervisors are to be set aside as false, and these officers branded as liars, per- 
jurers and ballot-box stuffers upon the testimony of Townes. 

THIBD WARD IK PETERSBURG. 

The vote here stood : 

Venable, 518 ; Langston, 174 ; Arnold, 105. The committee 
** readjust " these returns, and give Langston 284, Venable none. 

This ward extends through the most populous, business, and residence portion 
of the city. It is largely a white ward and has for years been known as a reliable 
Democratic ward. In 1886 it elected a Democratic council ticket by a large 
majority. In the spring of 1888, Collier, Democrat, received 484 votes ; Boiling, 
Republican, received 305 votes, in the mayoralty election. In neither of these 
21 



162 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

elections was there even a suspicion of fraud. It is tlie place of residence of the 
great body of white Republicans, who were, according to the evidence, almost 
unanimously supporters of Arnold. 

The majority of the committee, in their report, base their conclusions upon 
the testimony of Matt N. Lewis and W. J. Smith. 

Lewis testifies he kept a record at the polls of this ward of the votes cast for 
Langston ; that he stood right at the entrance where the colored voters approached 
the ballot-box, and where he could see the ballots given to the judge who received 
the ballots and deposited them in the box ; that he was there from sunrise until 
sunset, only leaving once, for about thirty minutes ; that he saw and read the 
ballot of every voter whose name he checked on his book, and he saw each ballot 
he checked deposited in the ballot-box ; that he entered himself in his book, in his 
own handwriting, all the names with the exception of a few that were entered 
during the thirty minutes he was absent from the polls ; that he read each ballot 
carefully. He gives the names of 286 voters as having been recorded by him and 
as having voted for Langston, except two. He says 16 of the 286 were entered 
during his absence by Smith. 

This is a full summary of this man's testimony. 

Lewis was convicted of criminal libel January 30, 1888, in the Hustings Court 
of Petersburg. The mayor of the city of Petersburg, who was a Republican, 
was libeled by this would-be exemplar of public morals because he refused to 
issue a warrant for the arrest of a white lady, for " assaulting an unsophisticated 
colored man," who in " an unguarded moment " had committed an assault upon 
her. 

Lewis is contradicted by G. H. Gill, Federal supervisor, Jas. M. Young, Geo. 
W. Dunn and Hon. Geo. Fayerman, Republican ex-member of the Legislature. 

Dunn said: 

A. It is not true. Mr. Lewis had a position that he could see the ballot about 
an hour and a-half. He was obstructing the voters, and I removed him from his 
position. He then occupied a place on an old stand, about ten feet from the judge 
of election. He remained in that position about half an hour. He then left the 
precinct. I didn't see him any more until about twelve o'clock. He was coming 
from towards sixth ward precinct. He then disappeared again and returned late 
in the evening. 

7. Q. There have been filed in the record as a part of the testimony of the 
said Lewis four books purporting to be the tally-books which he kept on November 
6th, 1888 at the third ward polls, containing the names of more than 200 voters, 
whose ballots he swore were given for John M. Langston. In answer to the fol- 
lowing question asked the said Lewis on his direct examination, to wit : " When, 
and under what circumstances, did you particularly observe the ballot of each 
colored voter before recording his name in said books ? " the said Lewis replied : 
" I read his ballot carefully, and after I had seen the judge to whom he handed his 
ballot deposit it in the ballot-box I then placed his name on my book." Q. Please 
state whether this reply of the said Lewis is true, and give your reasons. A. It is 
not true. All the colored voters were in a line separate from the whites. They 
had several parties giving them tickets, and it was impossible for any one to tell 
how they were voting. The colored tally-book of third ward, on Mr. Langston's 
side was kept by two or three different parties, and from the position that they held 
they could not have told one ticket from another. 

11. Q. Did you see any considerable number of colored voters show their 
tickets to the said Lewis, or to one W. J. Smith, or to one S. B. McE. Jones, who, 
as the said Lewis testified, kept his tally-books in his absence. A. I did not. 

12. Q. Would you have known such a fact if it had existed ? A. I think I 
should. 

Fayerman said 

17. Q. If it had been the general rule for the supporters of Langston to 
exliil)it their ballots to Lewis in order that he might record their names in a book, 



CONTESTED EI<ECTlONS. 163 

would you or would you not have been cognizant of such a custom ? A. Certainly 
I would have known. The only way Lewis could have judged would have been 
by the men who voted ; he might have surmised ; still I know a great many new 
voters of the third ward who were crying Langston that either voted for Arnold 
or Venable. 

18. Q. Do you or not know the fact that at the time it was suggested to the 
Langston tally-keepers that they were recording on their books as voting for 
Langston men who in reality had cast their ballots for one of the other candi- 
dates ? A. Yes, sir ; several colored men have come to me at the poll and stated 
that they were tired of this nonsense of colored women and ministers interfering 
in politics ; that they were never going to vote against General Mahone and his 
candidate ; therefore they voted for Mr. Arnold in preference to Mr. Langston ; 
and yet these very men were crying out " Langston ! " and " What's the matter with 
Langston?" in every corner of the streets. 

20. Q. There have been filed in this record as a part of the testimony of the said 
Lewis, four books purporting to be the tally-books which he kept on the 6th of 
November, 1888, which he kept at the third ward polls, containing the names of more 
than 200 voters whose ballots he swore were given for John M. Langston. In an- 
swer to the following question asked the said Lewis on his direct examination, to 
wit : " When, and under what circumstances did you particularly observe the bal- 
lot of each colored voter before recording his name in said books ? " the said Lewis 
replied: "I read his ballot carefully, and after I had seen the judge to whom he 
handed his ballot deposit it in the ballot-box, I then placed his name on my book." 
Please state whether or not this reply of the said Lewis is true, and give your reasons. 
A. It may be true so far as the one-eighth or one-tenth of the men who voted an open 
ticket, provided Lewis'was present and was paying some attention. But with re- 
gard to the others 'tis not true, for he had not the means of knowing how they voted. 

21. Q. From your experience in such matters, is it possible outside of the 
polls to keep an accurate tally of the votes cast for any particular candidate in an 
election conducted under the laws which regulated the election of November 6th, 
1888, and give your reasons ? A. Not possible, except four men unite in concert 
in keeping an account and paying particular attention to the voters in giving and 
depositing their tickets. On the 6th of November Langston's friends had so many 
ticket-holders and so many men otherwise engaged that they were in conflict with 
each ether, and some of these ticket-holders, ichilst pretending to he for Langston, 
were distributing tickets for Arnold ; therefore no proper count could he kept. 

German H. Gill, Federal supervisor : 

12. Q. Were you present after the close of the polls and during the count 
and canvass of the vote ? A. I was present during the count and canvass of the 
vote, and from the time the polls closed I did not leave until the count and 
canvass was finished or completed, and the tally-sheets, &c., with the ballots 
were placed in the ballot-box and sealed by the judge. 

17. Q. Was the election of the 6th of November, 1888, any exception to the 
general rule with regard to the voting of folded ballots ? A. No, sir. 

18. Q. Was there any fraud or sharp practice of any kind practiced in the 
counting, canvassing, or returning of the vote of third ward polls on November 6th, 
1888 ? A. I had every opportunity to see and hear everything that was done or 
said in the count and canvass and return of the said vote. I saw nothing of fraud 
or sharp practice. If I had seen any such fraud or sharp practice I should, as 
United States supervisor, have stopped it at once. 

19. Q. If there had been any fraud at the third ward polls would you not 
have been able to see and discover it ? A. Yes. 

James M. Young : 

1. Q. (by counsel for contestee) What is your age, occupation and residence? 
A. I am 29 years old ; my occupation, police officer for the city of Petersburg ; 
my residence, corner Sycamore and Oak streets, third ward. 

2. Q. Where were you on election day, November 6th, 1888? A. I was at 
the third ward precinct. 

3. Q. Were you on duty there that day ? A.I was. 

4. Q. What time did you get to the polls on that day and how long did you 
stay there ? A. Well, sir, I think it was after I had eaten breakfast, about 7 oq' Q 
o'clock, I stayed there all day. 



164 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



5. Q. During the time you were at the polls did you see M. IST. Lewis, a wit- 
ness for the contestant in this case ? A. Yes, sir. 

6. Q. The said Lewis has testified upon his direct examination as follows: 
" I stood right at the entrance where the colored voters approached the ballot-box, 
where I could see the ballots given by the voter to the judge, who received the bal- 
lots and deposited them in the box. I was there from sunrise until sunset, only 
leaving once about thirty minutes." Please consider this statement carefully and 
say if you know whether it is true, and give your reasons. A. He is mistaken. He 
left there, sir, two or three times during the day. I mean tJie door ichere tJiey were voting. 
I missed him away from there. I noticed that he was gone. I noticed him on oxxount of 
his being around there and taking an active part in the canvass and election. 

Giving Langston the benefit of all that can be claimed for him, the vote stands 
as follows: 





Venable. 


Langston. 




13,298 
69 


12,657 
141 


Add vote at Poacb. and Ross 






Deduct returned vote sixth ward Petersburg 


13,367 
a53 


12,798 
139 






Add reformed vote sixtti wajfd Petersburg 


13,015 
240 


12,659 
377 






Dpfinf ti Tfit'iiirnfirt votip af. TiP'wrlRt;oTi .. 


13,255 
119 


13,036 

48 








13,136 
101 


12,988 
66 








13,237 


13,054 



Clear majority of Venable over Langston, 183 votes. 

The minoritj of the committee said in their report : 

First. Adding vote at Poach and Ross : Majority for Venable 569 votes. 

Second. " Readjusting " the vote in the sixth ward of Petersburg, and giving 
to Langston all he claims, and to Venable the well-known Democratic vote, which 
according to the testimony of Langston's witnesses' was out in full force : Majority 
for Venable, 219 votes. 

Third. " Readjusting," as above stated, the vote in the sixth ward of Peters- 
burg, and " reforming " the vote at Lewiston, and giving to Langston all that his 
worker and witness claimed for him (66 votes), and deducting his gain of 18 votes 
over the returned vote for him from Venable : Majority for Venable, 183 votes. 

Having conceded to the contestant far more than precedents, law, or sound 
policy would allow, and giving to him everything which his friends claim for him, 
except in the third ward of Petersburg, it will be seen that the contestee has a clear 
and incontestable majority of 183 votes. 

As we have indicated, the majority of the committee have arrived at a con- 
clusion entirely different, but we submit most respectfully that they have in every 
instance disregarded without reason the testimony of contestee's witnesses, and 
acted npon presumptions, not facts, and strengthened weak points in the contest- 
ant's case by drawing upon their imaginations as to what might have been proved 
if the contestant had been more active and energetic. 

Contestant was seated September 23. 

McOiiinis ts. Aldersou. 

Reported August 2. It is claimed that contestant should 

have had the certificate of election on the face of the returns. 

Kanawha county's returns were not in the hands of the 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 



165 



governor, being in charge of the Circuit Court, which was in- 
vestigating them, when the certificate was issued. Taking a 
technical view, this county should be thrown out altogether. 
But coiitestee demanded a recount, which was made. The 
county commissioners were all Republicans : 

And in the progress of said recount their actions and rulings were so partisan, 
corrupt, and biased in favor of contestant that they refused to allow contestee to 
appear before them in person or by counsel. They denied him the process of the 
court, refused to permit him to introduce any testimony, or to cross-examine the 
"witnesses who were put upon the stand to testify in respect to the regularity of 
the returns from the various precincts in said county. And they further refused 
to settle and sign bills of exceptions certifying their illegal and partisan action 
aforesaid, until they were compelled to do so by the peremptory writ of mandamus 
issued by the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State. 

In the precincts where the recount of the ballots showed gains for the contestant, they 
adopted the recount, and where gains were made for the contestee they rejected the re-- 
count and certified from the poll-books rather than the ballots. 

The following tabulated statement, shows the vote as it was certified upon the 
poll-books from each and every precinct in said county, and also the result of the 
recount of the ballots cast at said precincts made by said commissioners, as 
hereinbefore stated, as between contestant and contestee. 





Original count. 


Recount, 


Precincts. 


< 


i 


o 

< 


S 
O 




14 

153 

264 

238 

88 

50 

17 

25 

16 

92 

58 

124 

47 

79 

82 

69 

121 

60 

91 

101 

36 

52 

23 

49 

19 

113 

64 

100 

64 

840 

27 

74 

37 

53 


55 

229 

320 

234 

163 

144 

77 

40 

26 

70 

40 

104 

69 

88 

211 

15 

53 

44 

331 

179 

40 

154 

22 

179 

■ 82 

134 

84 

82 

61 

864 

51 

162 

138 

no 


14 

151 

263 

329 

87 

53 

17 

25 

16 

92 

58 

124 

47 

79 

82 

69 

131 

60 

91 

53 
23 
49 
19 

113 
64 

101 
63 

852 
27 
74 
37 
52 


55 
231 


West End 




320 
231 


St Albans 


Thaxton's 


163 


Alum Creek 


138 


Island Branch 


77 
40 


Kendall's Mills » 


Dry Ridge 


26 


Brownstow^n 


70 
40 


Sniitb''s Ci'eek 




104 

69 

88 


Spring Hill 




Big Sandy 


311 
15 


Kelley 's Creek 




53 ■ 


Tyler Creek 


44 


Sissonville 


334 


Conley's 

Shrewsbury 


179 
40 


Danaville 


154 


TJpper Falls 


22 


Field Creek 


180 


Fairfield 


82 


Clifton 


135 


Kanawha Mines 


84 


Pine Grove 


81 " 


Cannelton 


61 "^ 


City of Chai'leston 


851 - 


Alden City 


50 


Big Chimney 


162 


^oca Fork 


138 ~ 
110 


Civens 






Total 


3,329 


4,658 


3,341 


4,638 



166 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The contestant received in all of the counties of said district, other than the 
county of Kanawha, 14,631 votes, and contestee received in same counties 15,944 
votes. If the election is determined in Kanawha county as certified upon the poll- 
hooks, contestant has a plurality in the district of 16 votes. If, however, it is de- 
termined upon the recount of the ballots cast in said county, then contestee has a 
plurality of 16 votes. 

IMPORTATION OF REPUBLICAN VOTERS. 

The district borders on Virginia and contains many mines 
in which negroes are employed, The mine owners are Republi- 
cans. Some of these negroes go from one place and from one 
State to another, having no fixed place of residence, while others 
reside in "Virginia, across the line. Contestee proved their non- 
residence, and that many of them, and several whites who voted, 
had since voting disappeared. Only one witness undertook to 
contradict contestee' s proof. He A\'as a negro preacher and 
swore only that he had seen these persons around the locality 
for some time. Five of those identified among them as being 
persons he had seen in Mercer county actually voted in McDowell 
county. The minority report sets out the names of these illegal 
voters with the evidence of their non-residence and concludes : 

We have now shown that the sitting member has a clear plurality of at least 
174 votes. To reach this conclusion we have not claimed for him the benefit of a 
large number of illegal votes cast for contestant, and fairly proved. We have 
insisted upon no technicalities to enable us to effect this resplt. 

Goodrich TS. Bnlloek 

Reported August 4. 

The grounds of contest, set out in the notice, are m general : refusal to receive 
legal votes tendered, false counting, false returns, destruction of ballot-boxes, and 
the commission of various other frauds by the election officers. 

This is in many respects like the Miller-Elliott case which 
follows, and is supported by the same sort of evidence. Evi- 
dence of persons who did not know who the candidates were or 
for what offices they were running, and did not know what sort 
of tickets they voted or have the slightest conception of what 
they were doing, but who depended entirely upon others for 
their ballots, is brought in to upset the election and contradict 
the sworn returns of election, supported as they were, by the 
oaths of other reputable and intelligent citizens. Persons 
proved to have cast Democratic votes thus after the election, 
afraid, in many instances to acknowledge that they voted 
against the party that assumes and asserts ownership over them 
and the right to cast their ballots for them ; persons who for 
any reason whatever are induced to deny that they voted the 
Democratic ticket, or to assert that they intended to vote the 
Republican ticket, are permitted to swear away the results of 
elections and reverse the action of the people of the district. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 



167 



nominee 



Here are some examples of the evidence in this case : 

Elias Jackson : 

Q. What is Congress ? A. Mr. Williams told me to vote for the Pugrakin 

Is Congress a man or a woman ? A. I think it is a woman, a black woman. 

Henry White : 

Q. Who was the Republican nominee for Congress in the second Congress- 
ional district of Florida at the election held November 6, 1888 and who was the 
Democratic nominee ? A. Bob IngersoU, Republican, and John Sherman was the 
Democratic nominee. 

Allowing everything that could be claimed upon any pre- 
text whatever, the vote was: 

!N"et changes in favor of contestant in — 

Votes. 

Hamilton county 183 

Duval county. 34 

Columbia county 127 

Putnam county 15 

Orange county 31 



Total. 



390 



Returned majority for Bullock 3,195 

Net change in his favor in Hamilton county 2 

In Duval , 1 



3,198 



Deducting 390 

Bullock's majority is. 2,808 

Miller vs. £lliott. 

Reported July 1. The official returns showed: 

Election Returns^ Seventh Congressional District. 



Counties. 



William 
EUiott. 



Thomas E. 
Miller. 



Robert 
Simmons. 



Beaufort 

Berkeley 

Charleston 

Colleton 

Georgetown .... 
Orangeburgh. . . 

Richland 

Sumter 

W ilUamsburgh. 



1,753 
45 
652 

821 

987 

367 

1,782 

1,053 



2,056 
1,547 
143 
210 
957 
310 



624 



54 



18 



8,358 



7,003 



The method by which the committee reached the conclusion 
that these returns were fraudulent was very simple. The census 
returns of population were taken. As they showed a large 
majority of negroes in the district, the consequence was, in the 
opinion of the committee, that Miller was elected. Unanimously 
adopted — it would save a great deal of time, trouble and money 



168 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



in the holding of elections and contests. But it is hardly justi- 
fied by admitted facts. For instance, there was no charge of 
any sort against Georgetown county, yet the census shows : 

Population and number of Males of voting age classified by race according to census of 

1880. 



County. 


Total. 


White. 


Colored. 


Males 21 years of 
age and over. 




White. 


Colored. 




19,613 


3,466 


16,147 


853 


3,449 





The vote was as follows 



County. 



Georgetown 
Not voting.. 



Total voting population. 



Elliott. 



821 



Miller. 



957 



Total. 



1,778 
2,523 



4,301 



No explanation can be given of this extraordinary result except that the mass 
of colored voters have ceased to take an interest in political matters. 

In addition to this there is abundant proof throughout the testimony that 
colored men voted for contestee. 

As to the table of population and men of voting age given by the majority, a 
-careful examination of the books of the last census fails to disclose any such table. 

It was charged that the negroes could not find the registra- 
tion office, yet the testimony of the registration officer and 
others is clear that it was where it had always been, and was 
open the entire time provided by law. This was in Colleton 
county. 

In Orangeburg county, one E. A. Webster alone testified 
that he met the officer of registration after the books were closed 
in accordance with the law and asked for a transfer, which was 
refused. He mentions only one other who was refused while 
the books were opon, and that one was a voter in another dis- 
trict than that in which he made application. 

VOTING IN WRONG BOX. 

It was claimed that 1,000 ballots were found in the wrong 
boxes and thrown out. 

The proof shows that the law was strictly complied with in labeling the boxes 
for President and member of Congress in plain and distinct Roman letters. 

There was no dishonesty proved ; no failure to discharge their duty on the 
part of any of the election officers, the only complaint being that the tickets for 
member of Congress found in the Presidential box were destroyed, no matter who 
they were cast for, contestant or contestee, as appears in the evidence of one of 
contestant's witnesses, one Lawrence Brown, page 14 of the record. He was in- 
terrogated on cross-examination by Mr. Gilland : 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 169 

Question. How many of Mr. Elliott's votes were found in the Presidential 
l)0x? Answer. Twenty-one. 

Q. Those were thrown out and not counted ? A. Yes, sir. 

It seems there was no deviation from this rule, and the law was enforced to 
the letter in this regard with the utmost impartiality. 

The law requires the voter to go alone to the polls, unattended by the worker, 
and protected from the bulldozer and the heeler, paid possibly to force him to ex- 
press by his ballot another's will, and not his own. On reaching the polls he does 
so a free man, relieved from all coercing influences ; no one is permitted even to 
touch his white ballot but himself ; the boxes are before him, properly labeled. 

No better illustration of the wisdom of this law can be found than is furnished 
by the evidence in relation to Grahamville and Ladies' Island precincts in Beaufort 
county, where a large number of voters, under the instruction of contestant and 
others of those voting them, deposited a Miller ballot in both boxes. 

Miller received in the Congressional box 205 votes and in the Presidential 189 
votes, and not one solitary vote was cast for the Republican Presidential ticket. 
Miller himself forgot to vote for Harrison and Morton, but manifestly cast two 
votes for himself. 

X. C. Rue, who had charge of contestant's tickets, gives explanation of the above. 

Q. Do you know if the Congressional ticket was voted in the Congressional 
and electors' boxes at Grahamville ; if so, by whose dictation ? A. In the morning 
when I went to the polls and began distributing tickets, I only gave one ticket to 
each voter. Some of the voters called my attention to the fact that there was also 
a Presidential box, whereupon 1 gave them another Congressional ticket and told 
them they just as well vote that one also, for luck, and continued to do so the rest 
of the day, as they did not seem satisfied in voting the one ticket. 

W, M. O' Bryan testified : 

Q. How did the ignorant voters distinguish the boxes ? A. They asked the 
managers. 

Q. Did the managers tell them ? A. They did. 

Q. I understand you to say that the managers would tell the voters which was 
the electoral box and which was the Congressional box ? A. Exactly. 

Q. Were there votes for both Miller and Elliott in the wrong boxes ? A. There 
were. 

Q. Can you say how many for each ? A. I can not. 

Q. Do you knew Daniel Ravanell ? A. I do. 

Q. What was he doing there that day ? A. He was supervisor. 

Q. Did Ravanell keep any account of any votes that day ? A. He did not, to 
the best of my belief ; I was standing where I could see him when the votes were 
counted and he took no account then. 

As a matter of fact, the evidence shows that the negroes 
generally had been instructed by the Republican bosses not to 
ask the officers to point out the proper boxes, but to rely upon 
the directions given by these bosses. 

The Republican objection to this law is that, as they say, it 
establishes an educational test in effect, and the Johnny Daven- 
port Force bill provides for the counting of all ballots, wherever 
found, to avoid its effect, though the States have the constitu- 
tional right to prescribe the qualifications of voters. 

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TESTIFIES. 

Wherever the Republican party was on election day, it was 
out in full force when contestant was taking testimony to over- 
22 



170 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGl^ BOOK. 

throw the election. A careful consideration of these extracts^ 
culled from the depositions for contestant, will enable one to 
understand how a Republican conunittee proceeds to set aside 
the will of the people. 

Cross-examination of Emanuel Youton : 

Q. When were you born ; what year? A. I can not tell the year. 

Q. How many ballot-boxes were at the poll that day ? A. There were two. 

Q. Did each of the boxes have labels on them ? A. Yes. 

Q. What did those labels contain ? A. Don't kno w. 

Q. Then you don't know whether you put your ticket for T. E. Miller in the 
box labeled Presidential electors or the box labeled Representative in Congress ? 
A. I do not know. 

July Gadsden : 

Q. How many tickets did you vote on the 6th of November last ? A. I voted 
one ticket 

Q. How many ballot-boxes were at the precinct at which you voted ? A. Two. 

Q. Then you did not vote in but one of them ? A. But one. 

Q. Did you vote that one ballot in the box labeled Representative in Congress 
or the box labeled Presidential electors ? A. In the Congressional box. 

Q. Who did you vote for President ? A. Harris. 

Q Now, you testified a few minutes ago that you did not vote but one ballot 
on November 6th last, and that you voted that one ballo for T. S. Miller tor Con- 
gress in the box labeled Representative in Congress, and now you say that you 
voted for Harr fo President. How do you account for that? A. Singleton 
read the ticket, that Miller was on it for Congress, and I voted that. 

Prince Warley : 

Q. Did you notice any difference in the construction in the two boxes of the 
precinct ? A. I notice that one hole was large and the other small in the two 
boxes. 

Q. On which side was the box located containing the large hole? A. On 
the right. 

Q. How many ballots did you vote on that day ? A. Two. 

Q. For what officers were those two ballots voted ? A, One was for Presi- 
dent and the other for Miller. 

Q. What was Miller running for, governor ? A. He did not run for governor; 
Lave forgotten what he ran for. 

Bristow Mitchell: 

Q. Did you see Chapman vote on that ? A. I saw him vote. 

Q. Did you read the ticket that Chapman voted for President ? A. Yes ; I 
read his ticket. 

Q. Did he vote for Grant or Garfield for President ? A. Yes ; he did vote for 
Garfield. 

Q. Did the boxes at the precinct that day have labels on them ? A. Yes ; they 
had labels. 

Q. What did these labels contain ? A. The labels was to show you the differ- 
ence for Presidential electors and Congressman, 

Q. Did you vote for the same man for President that Chapman voted for? 
A. I did not vote for the same man. 

Q. Did you vote for Cleveland for President? A. I did. 

William Alston : 

Q. Who did you vote for for President, Cleveland or Conkling ? A. I voted 
for President at large. 

Q. Then you just went it blind, for nobody in particular ? A. No ; I voted for 
nobody in particular. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 171 

Q. You voted for Congressman in the same way, did you not ? A. Yes. 

Q. How many ballots did you vote on that day ? A. I voted two. 

Q. Did you vote them both for the same oflacer? A. Yes. 

Q. Which box had Miller's name for Congress on it, the one on the right or 
left ? A. The one on the left with the small hole for Miller. 

Q. Then you voted for Miller in the small hole ? A. Yes. 

Q. In which box did you vote for Miller, on the right or on the left ? A. I 
voted in the right for Miller. 

Q. For what office was the President running ? A. For Senator. 

Q. In which box did you vote for Senator ? A. In the right-hand box. 

Jeffrey Smith ; 

Q. You really did not have but one ballot that day ? A. Only one. 

Q. You have already sworn that you did not vote but one ballot that day, and 
that was for Congressman. Why did you not vote for President also ? A. May 
have been two tickets in one for what I know ; he gave me the ticket, saying it was 
Republican, and I voted it. 

Q. What did you put in the other box — the box with the little hole ? A. I 
put them in just as they were given to me ; if there were two tickets I put them in 
the box with the big hole. 

Paris Smalls: 

Q. What oflSce was Harrison running for ? A. I understand he was running- 
for President. 

Q. What office was T. E. Miller running for ; was he running for TJ. S. Senator? 
A. I do not know. 

Q. If you do not know what office he was running for how did you testify a 
few minutes ago that you voted for him for Congress ? A. By CTiapmari's instruc- 
tions. 

Jake Brown: 

Q. Who did you vote for for President on November 6th last? A. I voted 

for Miller. 

Denibo Washington : 

Q. How many ballots did you vote that day ? A. I voted two. 

Q. Did you vote for President ? A. I voted for Miller at large. 

Q. Did you vote for Miller for President. A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many ballots did you vote for Miller for President ? A. I cast two, 
l)Ut I had an understanding of the difference. 

Q. Did you vote for Elliott or Smalls as Representative in Congress ? A. I 
voted for Smalls. 

Q. If you can not read yourself how did you happen to testify just now that 
you voted for Miller for President ? A. So far as I got the ballot to cast I ask the 
name, and they gave me Miller's name. 

George Morgan: 

Q. Did you notice any difference iu the construction of the two boxes? A. 
2^0, sir, 

Q. Then how did you know which box in which you should deposit your ticket 
for Congressman ? A. I know by instruction ; I put it on the right. 

Q Was that the box in which you were instructed to vote for Presidential 
elector ? A. Yes, sir 

Q Was that also the box in which you were instructed to vote for Congress- 
man ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q Did you vote as you were instructed ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you vote for Miller for President ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you vote for Miller for U. S. Senate ? A. Yes, sir. 



172 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



P. Catties 



Q. Then you did not know whether you were voting correctly or not ? A. I 
voted as I think was proper to my advantage. 

Q. Did you vote for T. E. Miller as a Presidential elector? A. That's what 
I did. 

Q. Did you notice any difference in the* construction of the boxes? A. I did; 
one b'ox had a small hole and the other hole was larger. 

Q. Was the small hole on the right or left ? A. On the left. 

Q. Did, you vote for T. E. Miller in the small or large hole ? A. In the large 
hole. 

Q. Did you vote in. the large hole for President Sherman? A. In the large 
hole for President Sherman. 

Q. Did you vote in the large hole or the small for V. President Cleveland ? 
A. In the small hole. 

Sam Rutledge : 

Q. Will you swear that you actually voted for Miller as Presidential elector ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Charles Nichols : 

Q. For whom did you vote for President, Elliott or Miller ? A. Miller. 

Q. Did you vote two ballots or tickets in each of the boxes at the precinct ? 
A One in each, 

Q. Did you notice any difference in the construction of the boxes at the pre- 
cinct ? A One box had a larger hole than the other. The right-hand box I voted 
for Miller in. 

Q Having voted for Miller in the right-hand box, will you swear that you 
voted for Elliott in the left ? A. I voted in the right-hand box. 

Q. In which of them did you vote for Elliott, the right or the left ? A. The 
left. 

Q. For what office did you vote for Miller, President or Senator ? A. Presi- 
dent. 

Q. For what office did you vote for Sherman, President or Congress ? A. I 
don't know what office he ran for, but I vote two papers. 

Q. What kind of papers did you vote, registration certificates or letter receipts ? 
A. I voted paper like print. 

Sam Frazer: 

Q. In which hole did you vote for Miller, the big or the little hole V A. I 
voted for Miller in the big hole. 

Q. Miller was running for President, was he not ? A. Miller was running for 
President, 

Ben Green : 

Q. In which box did you vote for Miller for Presidential elector, the right or 
the left, the big or the little hole ? A. In the large hole. 

Q. For what office was Miller running. President or Senator ? A. Miller was 
runningfoj President. 

Q. Diqf you vote for him fo^ that office ? A. 'Twas my intention to vote for 
him for what he was running for. 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you voted for Elliott or Sherman for Presi- 
dent? A. I voted for Miller 

Q. How many ballots did you vote that day ? A. I voted one ticket that day. 

Q. Did you vote that one ticket for President ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you vote for Miller for President ? 

(Objected to on ground that witness has fully answered the question ; it i& 
misleading and intended to materially injure contestant.) 

A. I voted for Miller for President. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 173 



Shai*per Gillings : 



Q. Were you born in 1784 or 1785 ? A. In 1775 ; but you must speak plain, 
I am an Englishman. 

Q. Did you come over to this country in the Mayflower or originally with 
Christopher Columbus ? A. I was born right here. 

Q. How is it then that you call yourself an Englishman ? A. Because that's 
the way my mother and father learn me the English language and in politics. 

Q. Did you vote for Miller for President in the big or little hole ? A. I voted 
for Miller for President in the big hole. 

Jackson Pinkney : 

Q. Are you willing to testify that the words ** Republican party " were printed 
on the ticket thai^ you voted that day ? A. Yes, the word was printed on the ticket. 

Q. Who did you vote for for President, Beck or Elliott ? A. Beck and Har- 
rison. 

Q. Did you vote for both Beck and Harrison for President ? A. The same 
ticket I voted for Beckman for V. President I voted for Harrison. 

Q. In which box did you deposit your ballot for Miller? A. The one to the 
right, with the big hole, for Miller. 

Q. Was that the box labeled " Representative in Congress ?" A. Yes, that is 
the box. 

Q. Are you willing to testify that the name of Beck and Harrison were printed 
on the ticket which you voted. A. I am willing. 

Sam Simmons : 

Q. In which hole did you vote for Miller for President — the big or the little 
one ? A. The large one on my right. 

Q. In which hole did you vote for Elliott for Congress — the big or the little 
one ? A. I voted in the little hole. 

April Ford : 

Q. How many ballots did you vote that day ? A. Two. 

Q. Did you notice any difference in the construction of the boxes at the 
precinct? A. No. 

Q. For what office was Wm. Elliott running ? A. I do not know. 

Q. Are you willing to testify that you actually voted for Miller as Presidential 
elector? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you vote in both of the boxes at the precinct that day ? A. Yes. 

Q. Did you vote two ballots in each of the boxes ? A. No ; one. 

Q. And each of these ballots contained the name of your friend, T. E. Miller ? 
A. Yes. 

Baalam Burnet : 

Q. If I were to call the name of the man for whom you voted for Congressman 
from this district, would you know it ? A. Yes. 

Q. Was it Harrison ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If I were to call the name of the man for whom you voted in the box for 
President, would you know it ? A. Yes. 

Q. Was it Sherman ? A. No. 

Q. Was it Garfield ? A. No, sir. 

Q. Was it Miller ? A. Yes, sir. 

Philip Robinson : 

Q. When Chapman read your ticket to you, did he read the name Harrison ? 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are vou willing to testify, of your own knowledge, that you voted for 
Miller in the box labeled Presidential electors ? Yes, sir. 

Baalam Ford : 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you voted for Miller in the box labeled for 
Presidential electors ? A. Yes, sir. 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Simon Froser : 



Q. "Will you swear that the words Republican party were printed on the 
ticket which you voted for Miller for Presidential elector ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for Miller in the box labeled Presidential 
electors ? A. Yes, sir. 

Beacher Morgan : 

Q. Are you willing to swear that nobody read your ticket to you ? A. No one 
read them. 

Q. Then you don't know who you voted for for Presidential electors and 
Representative in Congress ? A. I do not. 

Ben Harlbeck: 

Q. If you voted for Miller for Congress, for what oflice did you vote for W. 
r. Myers, governor or President ? A. President. 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you voted for him (Miller) for Presdential 
elector in the box with the small hole ? A. Yes. 

Tony Robinson : 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you didn't vote but one ticket on the day of 
the election. A. I voted two tickets. 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you voted for Miller for Presidential 
elector? A. For President. 

Bob Robinson: 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you actually voted your registration certificate 
for Tom Miller ? Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you voted for Miller in the box for Presi- 
dential electors ? Yes, I did. 

John Lessington : 

Q. Will you swear, on your honor as a man, that you did not vote but one 
ballot on the 6th of November last ? A. One. 

Q. In which box, the ight or the left, did you vote for Miller for Presidential 
elector, the big or the little nole? A. There were two boxes, one on the right and 
the other on the left, and just as Chapman gave me the tickets I voted them, as he 
instructed; I don't know whether I voted for him in big or little hole. 

Q. Will you swear that you actually voted for him that day for Presidential 
elector? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. If you voted for Miller in one of the boxes, who did you vote for in the 
other? A. I did not hear the name of the man. 

Q. Did you vote in both of the boxes ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You have already sworn that you did not vote but one ballot that day, now 
you swear that you voted in both boxes ; will you explain how you voted one bal- 
lot in two boxes ? A. I don't know how. 

Jackey Wragg : 

Q. Will you swear positively that you did not vote but one ballot that day ? 

(Objected to on the ground that the question is irrelevant to the issue and in- 
tended to prolong the examination for the benefit of the contestee.) 

A. I voted two tickets. 

(Counsel for contestee objects to counsel for contestant stating that witness 
can answer as he answered before.) 

Q. For whom did you vote for President, Col. Wm. Elliott or T. E. Miller? 
A. I voted for Harrison and Miller. 

Q. Will you swear of your own knowledge that you voted for both Harrison 
aud Miller for President ? 

(By contestant. — Objected on the ground that the witness has already answer«d 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 175 

the question ; the question is irrelevant to the issue, as the witness has testified 
already that he voted for Miller for Congress and Harrison for President.) 

(By contestee. — Objection is made to above objection on ground that it is 
unfair to recall to recollection of witness what he has formerly testified to for the 
purpose of enabling witness to answer correctly, and for the further reason that 
the witness has not answered that he voted for Harrison for President separately, 
but both Miller and Harrison together for the office of President.) 

A. I voted for Harrison for Congress. 

William Boggs : 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for Sherman for President in the left-hand 
box with the small hole ? 

(Objected to on ground that the question will benefit neither contestent nor 
contestee, and is irrelevant to the issue.) 

A. Miller for President. 

Anthony Bartlett : 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for Miller in the box labeled Presidential 
elector on the right-hand side with the big hole ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you Bwear that the words Republican party were printed on your 
ticket ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for Grant, the Republican nominee for Presi- 
dent ? A. I don't know anything about him. 

Q. If I were to call the name of the person for whom you voted for President 
would you know it ? A. I don't know, because I can't read. 

Q. Did you ever hear his name ? A. No, sir. 

Moses Field: 

Q. Will you swear that you voted but one ticket that day ? A. Voted one icket. 
Q. Will you swear that that one ticket contained he name of Benj. Harrison 
for President ? A. Yes, sir. 

Scipio Campbell : 

Q. Will you swear that the name of T. E. Miller was not printed on he icket 
for Presidential elector ? A. I don't know whether it was on there for President, 
Senator, or not. 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for Miller for Senator ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for Harrison in the box labeled or marked 
Representative in Congress ? A. Yes. sir. 

Toby Elliott : 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for T. E. Miller in the right box for Vice- 
President ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will you swear that you voted for T. E. Miller in the box labeled Presi- 
dential elector ? A. Yes, sir. 

Aaron Judge : 

Q. For whom did you say you voted ^'or President that day ? A. Miller. 
Q. Are you willing to swear that that is true ? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Are you willing to swear that you put the ticket containing Miller's name 
in the box labeled Presidential electors ? A. Yes, sir. 

Charles Mitchell : 

Q. Are you willing to swear that the name of T. E. Miller was actually printed 
on the ticket you voted for Vice-President ? A. Yes, 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you voted for Mr. Miller in the box labeled 
for that officer? A. I voted for Miller in the left box. 

Q. Are you willing to swear that that was the box labeled or printed Presi- 
dential electors ? A. Yes, sir. 



176 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Titus Wright : 

Q. Are you willing to swear that you voted for T. E. Miller for Presidential 
elector, in the right-hand box with a big hole ? A. Yes, sir. 

Ambrose Morgan : 

Q. Are you willing to swear that Daniel Fields read the words " Republica 
party " on your ticket ? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you willing to swear that he read those words on the ticket which you 
voted for Miller, and that you put that ticket in the box labeled or marked " Presi- 
dential electors?" A. Yes, sir. 

Smith Bowan : 

Q. Will you actually swear that you threw two tickets in the box? A. I 
threw one. 

Q. Will you swear that that ticket was voted in the box for Presidential 
electors ? A. Yes, sir. 

Mooner Wnshington : 

Q. Did you have your specks on day of election, but haven't got them to-day ? 
A. Yes, and I cannot read without them. 

Q. Will you swear that you voted the ticket with Miller's name on it in the 
box labeled Presidential electors ? A. Yes. 

It would be impossible to say whether the big holers or the 
little holers won the day from this stuff, yet there is not a case 
in which the voters themselves testify that does not present this 
exhibit. The Republican committee ascertains from such rot as 
this the *'true" state of elections. 

The contestee examined O. P. Williams, manager ; M. A. 
Draudy, clerk ; Sam'l. Driggs, constable ; B. H. Padgett, J. T. 
Blanchard, manager, and they all in the fullest manner sus- 
tained the complete fairness of the election and returns. 

DISTRIBUTION OF TICKETS BY ILLITERATE NEGROES. ^ 

It was clearly established that negroes who could not read 
were distributing Democratic tickets at the various precincts. 

NOTARIES PUBLIC AS ATTORNEYS AND WITNESSES. 

Five or six notaries, attorneys and witnesses acted in one of 
or all these capacities for contestant, against the protest of 
contestee. 

The committee says that, dealing with the testimony in the 
manner most liberal to contestee. Miller's majority is 757, or, by 
t^ie count made by the strict construction of the law. Miller's 
r lajority is 1,448. It must be conceded that this is liberal ; for 
tlie majority coul(? as easily been made 14,000. 

The minority report concludes : 

We do not agree with the majority in their conclusion, but conceding, for the 
purpose of the argument, that tliey are correct in all respects excepting as to 
the 1,000 votes alleged to be found in the wrong box and given contestant, still 
the contestee would have a majority of 243. 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 177 

The proceedings in the House in this case were the most 
disgraceful of al proceedings of the session ^ perhaps. Here is a 
transcript of the Record for September 24, showing what was 
done the previous day : 

SOUTH GAKOLINA ELECTION CONTEST — MILLER VS. ELLIOTT. 

Mr. RowELL. I call up the case of Miller m. Elliott. 
The clerk read as follows : 

Resohed, That William Elliott was not elected a Representative in the Fifty- 
first Congress from the seventh Congressional district of South Carolina, and is 
not entitled to retain a seat therein. 

Eesolved, That Thomas E. Miller was duly elected a Representative in the 
Fifty-first Congress from the seventh Congressional district of South Carolina, 
and is entitled to his seat as such Representative. 

Mr. RowELL. I demand the previous question on the adoption of the 
resolution. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. And upon that I raise the question of consideration. 

The question was taken on consideration, and the Speaker announced that 
the ayes seemed to have it. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Division. 

The House divided ; and the Speaker announced that the ayes were 155. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. No quorum, Mr, Speaker. 

The Speaker. The Chair overrules the point. There is a quorum present. 
[Applause on the Republican side.] 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Does 155 constitute a quorum of this House ? 

The Speaker. Not at all ; hut there are other members present besides those 
voting. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I say that no quorum has voted, and no quorum is present, 
as disclosed by the vote. 

Mr. McCoMAS. There is a quorum present. 

The Speaker. Some other gentlemen have come in since the vote was an- 
nounced. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Fair play is fair play, and that is all I want of any man upon 
this question as to the consideration of this case. 

The Speaker. The question is on ordering the previous question. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Does the Speaker decline to hear me ? 

The Speaker. The Chair does. The gentleman is here for delay. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. I am not here for delay. This case has just been called up. 
[Derisive applause on the Republican side.] I have appeared before howling mobs 
before, and this does not deter me from standing here and demanding my rights. 
This case has been sprung upon this House without any notice whatever. 

The Speaker. The question is upon the previous question. 

The question was put ; and the Speaker announced that the ayes seemed to 
have it. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. DivisioN. 

The House divided, and there were — yeas 154. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. No quorum, Mr. Speaker. 

The Speaker. Those opposed will rise. [After a pause.] Gentlemen not 
voting will please rise. 

Mr. CoNOER. I understand the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flood] did 
not vote. 
.23 



178 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The Speaker. Twelve not voting. One hundred and sixty-six members 
present. So the previous question is ordered. 

Mr. Payson. Regular order. 

The Speaker. The question is on the adoption of the resolutions. [Cries of 
" Vote ! " " Vote ! " on the Republican side.] 

Mr. Kerr, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker [Cries of " Regular order ! " on the 

Republican side.] 

The Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman rise ? 

Mr. Kerr, of Iowa. I understand that twent,y minutes for debate are allowed. 
I would like to hear a statement of the reasons for the seating of this man. 

Mr. Rowell. I do not desire debate. [Cries of "Vote!" "Vote!" on the 
Republican side,] The report of the Committee on Elections has been printed. 

The question was taken on the adoption of the resolutions ; and the Speaker 
announced that the ayes seemed to have it. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. Division. 

The House divided ; and there were — yeas 156. 

Mr. O'Ferrall. No quorum, Mr. Speaker, is either voting or present. 

A Member. One more in the affirmative. 

The Speaker. On this question the yeas are 157, 1 nay, and 9 not voting. 
So the resolutions are adopted. 

Mr. RowELL moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolutions were 
adopted ; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 

[Cries of " Next case ! " on the Republican side.] 

Tliat is all. Summarily, without a word of debate, without 
reading the report in the House and without an intimation that 
anybody had read it anywhere, contestee was turned out of his 
seat and a defeated Republican put in it. As a matter of fact, 
it is safe to say that not half a dozen of the members of the 
House, except those on the elections committee, knew anything 
about what was in the report or about the merits of the case. 

A more shameless act has never been committed by any 
body of free-booters since free-booting began. The conspira- 
tors dare not allow the evidence in this case to be discussed in 
the House. The declaration of Chairman Rowell that he did 
not desire debate told the whole story. 

Mr. Kerr, of Iowa, a Republican, had the decency to ask for 
the reasons for the seating of Miller, but the committee did not 
have the decency to give them to him. 

It will be noticed that the case closed with the familiar ex- 
clamation of the barber-shop, a very proper termination if it did 
not reflect so severely on a very respectable avocation. 

Clayton vs. Breckinridge. 

This case was utilized for all that could possibly be made of 
it by insinuation and innuendo to create the impression in the 
North that unless the Republican party sends the army and navy 
and a few hundred thousands of supervisors and deputy mar- 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 179 

shals down South to control elections the ballot will not repre- 
sent the political beliefs of the people, and that murder will be 
committed to prevent a free expression of political preference. 

Col. John M. Clayton, the Republican candidate, began a 
contest of the election very reluctantly and in consequence of 
the urgent requests of the Republican leaders. While this con- 
test was in progress he was murdered, and the hyenas of the 
Republican party hailed his death with delight. It afforded 
them an opportunity to howl that a Republican had been made 
l^e victim of a political outrage and then to justify a wholesale 
outrage on the whole people. 

There was one circumstance that many persons, apparently 
unfamiliar with Republican methods, thought might deter them 
from entering upon this course^ and that was, that there was 
not the slightest evidence of any sort to indicate that Col. 
Clayton was murdered by a Democrat or by anybody else, 
because of his politics or because of the pending contest, 
though it is more than probable that the murderer took advan- 
tage of these circumstances to mislead the officers of the law. 

A sub-committee was sent to Arkansas *' to make a full and 
thorough investigation of the contested election case." The 
full Committee on Elections speaks thus of the murder : 

Colonel Clayton remained four days, taking testimony and sleeping in a room 
which, had no windows 

On the night of January 29, 1889, his room was changed, and he and Mr. All- 
nut were occupying a room on the ground floor that had a window curtained with 
calico, a slit of a few inches being open in the middle of the curtain. After dark 
Colonel Clayton spent some time in walking backAvard and forward in this room. 
As the tracks subsequently showed, his murderers stood for some time at the 
window, watching his motions. He finally sat down at a table to write, and the 
instant that he was seated the fatal shot came crashing through the window. A 
load of buckshot penetrated his neck, almost severing the head from the body. 

As this murder was the gravamen of the case, it is impor- 
tant to consider it, though it had, of course, absolutely nothing 
to do with the result of an election held in the November pre- 
ceding its occurrence. ■ 

The report of the Committee on Elections says : 

The State and nation were horrified. Rewards were offered, and the commu- 
nity at Morrilton, near which the murder occurred, passed appropriate resolutions, 
but no earnest attempt to aid in bringing the murderers to justice has been made 
by the local authorities. The efforts of the governor have been in vain. Much of 
the work done has been upon a mistaken line, and without giving due weight to 
the suspicion that should naturally attach to the ballot-box thieves. 

The minority of the committee say in their report : 

So far as we know all the theories of the killing of Colonel Clayton are as 
follows : 



180 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

First. That he was killed by the men who stole the ballot-box. 

Second. That he was killed by the men who were under indictment. 

Third. That he was killed by men who wanted to stop inquiry into the right 
of Mr. Breckinridge to hold his seat. 

Fourth. That he was killed out of some grudge arising out of the murders 
committed before and during the period of martial law under his brother Powell 
Clayton's administration as governor. 

Fifth. That he was killed out of rivalries and factional hatred existing in the 
Republican party. 

Sixth. That he was killed in an attempt to manufacture a mock outrage, and 
hence not intentionally. 

None of these theories have been intelligently, systematically, or exhaustively 
inquired into by the committee, and some of them have not been inquired into at 
all. At a glance one can see from the status of the question, as left by the testi- 
mony of the four witnesses who were in the House at the time of the killing, that 
the most careful, intricate, and extensive inquiry would, in all probability, be nec- 
essary. The difficulties the case had presented to the State authorities, to individ- 
ual efforts, notably to those of the brothers of Colonel Clayton, and to the intel- 
ligent inquiries of special agents of great metropolitan newspapers, all pointed to 
the necessity of great thoroughness if any reliable conclusions were to be reached. 
It was known that all these efforts had been baffled ; and now a special committee, 
backed by all the power and resources of the Federal Government, was to give the 
matter an exhaustive and supreme overhauling. 

They seem to have been dominated by the unfortunate sentiment and policy 
of General Powell Clayton, who, when governor of the State and engaged in tor- 
turing a previously quiet and peaceful people into outbreaks, wrote A. M. Mer- 
rick, as shown by the official letter-copy book : 

Report to me every violation of law and every outrage, giving all the facts, as 
we intend using them as political capital to influence Northern elections. 

When men once engage in the "outrage" business as a species of political 
merchandise, they seldom take much interest in any discoveries which will stop 
the source or use of the supply. 

In this way there appears to be a settled purpose to " work " John Clayton's 
death "for aU it is worth;" and the State, the people, and parties whom it is of 
interest to accuse are assailed without testimony. 

The best refutation possible, however, to the allegations of the majority, is a 
plain statement of the facts as shown by the record. The first features to note are 
the expressions of public sentiment and the forms of public and popular action in 
the remises. Page 5C2 of the record discloses the following information, which 
the majority had to guide them : 

In the first place, immediately upon hearing the report, Governor Eagle wired 
Sheriff Shelby to this effect : " Inform me at once as to truthfulness of the report 
of murder of Clayton last night, giving particulars." 

To this Jeff Wright, clerK of Conway county, in the absence of Sheriff Shelby, 
wired : " Clayton was shot through a window in the early part of last night and 
killed ; perpetrators of crime not known." d 

There are set out a proclamation of Governor Eagle offering 
$1,000 reward, the full amount authorized by law, for the arrest 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 181 

and conviction of the murderers — a letter from the governor to 
the sheriff, enclosing a copy of the proclamation, a message from 
the governor to the legislature asking for a special act author- 
izing him to offer a greater reward, the special act appropriat- 
ing $5,000 for the purpose, the proclamation of the governor 
affixing the $5,000, and a letter from the governor enclosing a 
copy to the sheriff, and a statement of the evidence showing 
that everything possible was being done. 

Pbblic meetings were held in various parts of the State, 
and Gen. Powell Clayton, brother of the murdered man, says : 

All the DemQ#atic journals of the State at the time were vigorously denouncing 
this thing in as strong language as I could possibly dictate, if I should dictate all 
of it, and urging that the men should be brought to justice. 

The minority report continues : 

But in addition to all this public sentiment otherwise manifested itself in the 
most practical manner, voluntary rewards were offered; $1,000 by the people at 
Fort Smith ; about $3,000 at Little Rock ; over $2,000, all told nearly $2,500, at 
Pin3 Bluff: some hundreds in smaller amounts from other places, aggregating 
nearly or quite $6,000 in addition to the official reward offered by the State. This 
makes a total reward of say $11,000, $5,000 oi which was by the State and $6,000 
by voluntary subscription. While this action was totally non-partisan, yet it is 
known that the action of the State government was by a Democratic executive and 
a Democratic Legislature, and the overwhelmingly larger part of the voluntary 
subscription was by Democrats. This should have tempered the subsequent par- 
tisan proceedings of Republicans, but it has not had any appreciable effect that 
way. Never before in the history of the State had exceeding $1,000 been offered 
for the arrest and conviction of a murderer. 

Any amount necessary in the opinion of the governor could have been raised, 
but we have the evidence of General Clayton turning back money he could not 
use, and of the Gazette^ whose management and policy at that time General Clayton 
speaks of so highly, protesting that more money would be injurious rather than 
beneficial. This stands out conspicuously then, as the one case in all our history 
where, upon the testimony of all, the amount offered exceeded the wants, with no 
sign of exhaustion in willingness to give, and in which more than half of it was 
by popular subscription, the State exceeding any former offer fivefold, the people 
exceeding it sixfold, the total elevenfold, and as much more in reserve if the 
governor would only say he needed it. This is the conduct of the governor, the 
Legislature and the people of the State that the majority tells us needs to be 
bound by new and coercive laws. 

Gen. Powell Clayton and Mr. William Henry Harrison 
Clayton gave to the press a long statement for political effect, 
and showing that they knew how to ^ influence I^orthern elec- 
tions.'' The minority report says of it : 

Then it closes with these words : 

The foregoing facts we stand ready to substantiate in every essential particu- 
lar, every one of which we believe to be a material link in the chain of circum* 



182 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Stances surrounding and leading to the inhuman murder of our brother, John M. 
Clayton. 

And yet, when called upon to prove them, Mr. "W. H. H. Clayton responded in 
the following language : 

We have published the statement made by us of those facts, and it seems to us 
that the burden of proof to disprove them is upon the other gentlemen. 

When General Clayton is similarly questioned about such matters it is : 

Well, I don't know about that. It seems that even if evidence was prdbured it 
would be almost impossible to hang them in that county. 

And, 

Oh, I can't make any suggestions. Well, I don't know what the State has done. 
The State may have done everything it is required to do — I don't know. 

And so it is. They all know it for politics, but none of them know anything 
for conviction. 

The whole evidence to begin with consisted of some tracks 
in the garden from which the shot was fired and a pistol lying 
near them. 

Every one of the theories that seemed to amount to anything 
was run down as far as possible ; many men were arrested and 
every effort made to convict them under the stimulus of public 
opinion and the large rewards, but failure was the invariable 
result. The deputy sheriff, who was most gravely suspected by 
some, was overwhelmingly shown to be innocent. 

The Republican committee report says that sufficient atten- 
tion was not given to the theory that the ballot-box thieves 
committed the murder. Here is a statement of the evidence as 
to who stole the ballot-box, from that report : 

The judges separated, and left Wahl and one of the judges in charge of the 
box. After dark, some one came to the room where the box was, and looking into 
the door, asked if they had commenced counting. Mr. Wahl answered that they 
had not. Mr. Hobbs, the judge, whose back was turned at the time, asked Wahl 
who that was, and Wahl replied that it was O. T. Bentley. 
*********** 

A few minutes after Bentley, or the man whom Wahl recognized as Bentley, 
disappeared, four men with handkerchiefs over their faces and with revolvers in 
hand entered and took the ballot-box and poll-books away by force. Mr. Hobbs 
says that they had white faces, and there was no evidence to the contrary. 

Wahl was the Republican supervisor, Bently was the deputy 
sheriff. 

Every endeavor was made to convict everybody that was 
suspected of this offense. The Federal court, presided over by 
a Republican judge, and wholly under the control of Republican 
prosecuting and ministerial officers, tried everybody within reach 
of the barest suspicion, and no one was found guilty, so that it 
was not possible to say who the guilty persons were : and the 
conduct of every one suspected of that crime was also investigated 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS. 183 

in order to discover the murderer. About $80,000 were spent in 
the prosecutions. 

How, then, was it possible to give more attention to the 
theory that the thieves were also the murderers ? 

The minority report says : 

The point is tliat every Democrat was, by these same juries of the Federal 
court, acquitted of any offense and of every charge that involved, directly or in- 
directly, the corrupting of the ballot, or affecting the free casting, fair counting, 
and honest returning of the vote. While convicted on some they are acquitted on 
these counts. Mr. Breckinbridge, in his argument before the committee, distinctly 
asked Judge McClure to name any instance, when his time came to close the argu- 
ment, in which the finding of the court was not that the vote was counted and 
returned as cast, and he did not attempt to name one. 

This Judge McClure is the notorious Republican ex-Chief 
Justice, Poker Jack McClure. The conamittee that went to 
Arkansas took evidence until it got one side, with nothing in 
it, then promised Mr. Breckinridge that he could take the rest 
of his testimony in Washington, but subsequently closed the 
case, against his protest, without allowing him to take his evi- 
dence ; and somebody mutilated the record to make it show that 
all the evidence that any one desired to take had been taken, 
when the stenographer had been particularly charged to note 
the agreement made as to the taking of further evidence by 
contestee. 

Among the witnesses that Mr. Breckinridge wished to intro- 
duce were representatives of the arms company which sold the 
pistol that was found near the tracks in the garden and the 
detective that was employed by the brothers of the murdered 
man to investigate the crime. 

The arms company is alleged to have kept a record of sales 
by numbers of the weapons sold. It is a Missouri concern and 
is outside the jurisdiction of the State of Arkansas. Though Mr. 
Breckinridge and the authorities of the State of Arkansas offered 
every inducement to the company to allow an inspection of the 
register of sales, they failed to obtain it. The committee could 
have compelled the company to appear and exhibit the register. 

The detective made a written report to his employers, which, 
of course, was not proper evidence, and which was not put in 
the record, but he could have been cross-examined as to his 
investigation, and this would have elicited every fact that he 
had discovered in the course of an investigation that cost several 
thousands of dollars, and that was terminated only because the 
employers had gone to a point that was satisfactory to them, 
either by reason of its failure to disclose anything or because of 
the disclosure of what they did not care to pursue to its con- 
clusion. 

The chairman of the investigating committee announced 
in the House that the witnesses spoken of by Mr. Breckinridge 



184 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

were not called to testify, because Judge McClure, representing 
the other side, said that he did not want them called. 

That is a somewhat novel way '' to make a full and thorough 
investigation," to say the least of it, especially when the con- 
testee had had the committee's powers enlarged for this particular 
purpose. 

Though the committee bent every energy to discover some- 
thing that would in some way reflect on Mr. Breckinridge, his 
party and the people of his State, nothing was discovered, but, 
failing absolutely in that, innuendos was resorted to, and, there- 
fore, every statement intended to reflect discredit on either Mr. 
Breckinridge, his party or his people, is simply of such a 
character- as need not be specified otherwise than as specified 
by the contestee. 

Concerning this feature of the case Mr. Breckinridge said 
in his speech : 

But I have to say here that any man who charges, as it has been charged on 
this floor, or from the publlic press, or wherever it be, that the people of that 
State, or any group of people in that State in any represetative sense, have ever 
had anything to do with this infamous crime, or that they had or have any smypa- 
thy with it or had anything to do with in the remotest degree, or that I suspected 
it as coming from any source or cause, or in any shape or form, or know or knew 
of it. or of the guilty parties, directly or remotely, or that I have any sympathy 
with them or other desire than to hang them, or that I have left or shall leave any 
effort undone to accomplish that end, then .that man or these men utter that which 
is cowardly and mean, and which they know to be false. [Applause on the Demo- 
cratic side.] 

It was shown that the people of Arkansas, irrespective of 
party, contributed to the rewards that were offered, and that 
Mr. Breckinridge, though a man of small means, joined liber- 
ally with them. 

But Mr. Breckinridge was to be turned out, and some pre- 
text, in the absence of evidence, had to be found. It was there- 
fore assumed that some Democrat was the murderer. 

WHO WAS ELECTED? 

The material question in the case was, of course, as to which 
of the candidates received the majority of the votes cast in the 
election, and upon that question the minority report is quoted 
in conclusion, as follows : 

The minority do not find or believe that the election was affected in the least, 
or was intended to be affected, by but one event, and that was the theft, by unknown 
parties, of the Plummerville ballot-box. The count of this vote, however, upon 
the accepted proof of the majority of the committee, leaves Mr. Breckinridge a 
majority in the district of 413 votes, and this is his rightful majority. But to show 
that Mr. Breckinridge was elected upon every possible theory of the case, we give 
the following table : 



CONTESTED ELECTIONS, 



185 





Breckin- 
ridge. 


Clayton. 


Total vote returned for BrecKinridge 


17,867 






17,011 


Deduct the lesser from the greater. 


17,011 






Majority for Breckinridge 


846 










Claj^on's vote proved at Pluromerville 




558 


Breckinridge's vote proved at Plummerville 


125 




Deduct the lesser from the greater ,,..,,. 


125 








Clayton's majority at Plummerville 




433 








Breckinridge's majority brought down 


846 
433 




Deduct the lesser from the greater 








Breckinridge's true majority in the district 


413 
16 




Town of Augusta, Woodruff county, 8 negroes who voted for Breck- 
inridge testified they did not intend to so vote. Multiply by two 
and deduct 










397 
58 




Riverside Precinct, Woodruff county, 22 negroes testified as above; 
but the majority say 29. Multiply the latter by two and deduct. . . 









Leaving majority for Breckinridge 


339 
96 




Cotton Plant, Woodruff county, 48 negroes testified as above. Mul- 









Leavlng majority for Breckinridge 


243 
124 




White River, 21 negroes testified as above, but the majority say 62. 
Multiply the latter by two and deduct 








Leaving majority for Breckinridge 


119 
29 




They claim 29 negroes at Cotton Plant who did not vote (we make 
it 23), and are not recorded either way, but now come and say 
they did vote. Deduct this 










90 
13 




Thirteen other negroes are brought up from the other precincts and 
made to swear they voted. Deduct 








Majority left for Breckinridge 


77 
226 




According to the figures as computed by McCain & Harrod, attor- 
neys at Little Rock, for Mr, Breckinridge, the above final result, 
correctly computed from the testimony, exclusive of the negroes 









They make the number of those voters 23, instead of 29 and 13 — 52, as above- 
But this is immaterial, as the highest and ail the estimates of the committee are 
included above. 

This includes every vote counted or claimed in any and every way by the ma- 
jority. The result is that instead of showing that Mr. Breckinridge was not elected, 
the testimony shows most positively that he was elected. 

The only way in which this can be overcome is by casting out the Democratic 
votes which are conceded by the notice of contest to be fair. Or, if the committee 
is conducting an " investigation," then this is not to be treated as a contest, but as 
an inquiry ; not as a statutory case, but as an investigation under a special resolu- 
tion. Under this theory no evidence should be acceptable to the committee or the 
House except that which is procured by the same mode upon the one side as upon 
the other. To poll the vote upon one side and not to' poll it upon the other is mani- 
festly unfair. 

The sub-committee was acting independently for the House. The lawyers 

who appeared were employed and acting solely as the representatives and in the 

interest of other parties than the House. The policy of the committee seems to 

have been to follow the theory of the one side, and to exclude the testimony of 

24 



186 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

the other side. But we are disposed to believe the refusal to poll the vote for Mr. 
Breckinridge at the Woodruff county precincts was caused by the astonishing 
result of the Plummerville vote when polled. 

It was alleged in the notice of contest that he had only 75 votes there. The 
vote was polled and the committee concedes that he had 125 votes there, or more 
than 66 per cent, in excess of what the sub-committee expected. If this extended 
„o the Woodruff county boxes, the result would be far more disastrous to Repub- 
lican expectations or wishes than the present demonstrated majority for Breckin- 
ridge shows. 

This investigating committee had a purpose to accomplish, 
and it accomplished it. The circumstance that the testimony 
absolutely contradicted their theory was of no moment. 

A political outrage mill was in operation and it had to grind 
out the outrage. All was grist that came to it, and its out-put 
was to prepare the Northern stomach for the most damnable 
political outrage that has been perpetrated within a quarter of 
a century— though so far that outrage is only half accomplished. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 187 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



Mckinley bill; wages and prices; mills bill; tariff 

history; democratic and republican 

policies contrasted. 



A Free-trade—ProhibitiTe— Retaliatory— Reciprocity- 
Tariff— Tax and Bounty Bill. 

The subject of the tariff can not be 'treated on its Jmerits in this volume' 
intended rather to show some of the things this Congress has done at its first 
session than to discuss systems and abstract principles. The principles of the two 
great parties, as they relate to taxation, are well understood by the people. The 
last authoritative embodiment of Democratic doctrine was the Mills bill. It 
offered to give to the country what the party then thought that, under all the 
circumstances existing at that time, was the bes practica* measure ot relief from 
an illogical, inequitable and unjust system of overtaxation. The rates of duty 
charged by that bill are accordingly given in this work 

The party has in no wise changed its view as to the principles that ought to 
govern in taxation, whatever course it may hereafter pursue as to details. The 
probable disappearance of the surplus does not affect the question at issue. The 
methods employed to get rid of the surplus now and to avoid future accumulations 
serve only to make more pressing the need for wise legislation. The surplus was 
only one ol the evidences of over-taxation. It was the evidence afforded by the 
treasury. The complaint was against the cause of the accumulation and only inci- 
dentally against the surplus itself, which was one of its pernicious effects. 

The wasting of that accumulation, the evil that the Democratic party always 
pointed out as sure to result from its possession, and the enactment of a law to 
" check imports" by an increase of the rates of taxation, thus diverting the proceeds 
of the system of over-taxation from the treasury to the pockets of those in whose 
interest the system is maintained, only emphasizes the necessity for reduction in 
the rate o duty The issue is reform by reduction of taxation as contended for 
by the Democracy and aggravation by increase of taxation as contended for by the 
Republican party and distinctly set forth in the McKinley bill. 

Some of the changes made in our taxing laws by this bill are therefore shown, 
in order that the people may enlist in support of the one cause or the other as they 
may decide. The debates in Congress afford more detailed information upon this 
subject thaa can be given here. 



188 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

When the McKinley bill was reported to the House it was estimated that on 
June 30, 1891, the surplus would amount to about $90,000,000. The reductions 
made by the bill as it was then reported were estimated by its authors to be about 
$71,264,414, of which $60,936,536 would be in customs receipts and $10,327,878 in 
the receipts from the internal revenue. 

The reduction in the receipts from the internal revenue was to be brought 
about entirely by a reduction of taxation on luxuries ; that in the customs revenue 
"was to result mainly from increases in taxes on necessaries. 

The bill made changes in the internal revenue as follows : 

" First. Abolishing the tax on dealers in leaf tobacco, $48,570.88. 

*' Second. Abolishing the tax on dealers in manufactured tobacco, $1,280,015.98. 

" Third. Abolishing the tax on manufacturers of tobacco, $5,128.25. 

*' Fourth. Abolishing the tax on manufacturers of cigars, $120,195.53. 

" Fifth. Abolishing the tax on peddlers of tobacco, $127,010.88. 

" Sixth. A reduction of the tax on smoking and manufactured tobacco from 8 
cents to 4 cents per pound, $8,538,449.97. 

" Seventh. A reduction of the tax on snuff from 8 cents to 4 cents per pound, 
$322,544.78i. 

" Eighth. The abolition of the tax on retail dealers in leaf tobacco, $270.84." 

In the customs tariff the following named articles, now in the dutiable schedule, 
were transferred to the free list : 

Book and. pamphlets printed exclusively in language other than English. 
Book and musi in raised letters printed exclusively for the blind. 
Braids, plaits, laces, flats. 
Bristles, raw. 

Chicory root, raw, dried, o undried, but unground. 
Coal tar, crude, and pitch of coal tar. 

Dandelion roots, raw, dried, or unground, acorns, bees-wax. 

Floor matting manufactured from round or split straw, including what is commonly 
known as Chinese matting. 
Currants, Zante and other. 
Dates. 

Grass and fibers. 
Jute. 

Jute butts. 
Manilla. 
Sisal-grass. 

Sunn and all other textile grasses or fibrous vegetable substance, unmanufactured. 
Degras and other grease. 

Hair, human, raw, uncleaned, and not drawn. 
Molasses. 

Needles, hand, sewing, and darning. 
Nut oil or oil of nuts. 

Olive-oil for manufacturing and mechanical purposes, unfit for eating. 
Opiurn, unmanufactured. 

Potash, crude or black salts ; chlorate of, nitrate of crude, sulphate of crude. 

Bed earth or raddle, used for polishing lenses. 

Seeds. 

Hemp, rope, bulbs, bulbous roots, not edible. 

Shotgun, barrel or barrels, rough or bored. 

Sponges. 

Sugar up to and including No. 16, Dutch standard in color. 

Tar and pitch of wood. 

Tinsel wire, lame or lahn. 

Tobacco stems. 

Sulphur ore, as pyrites or sulphuret of iron containing an excess of sulphur. 

Turpentine, spirits of. 

Briar-wood, unmanufactured. 

Paintings in oil, water colers, statuary. 

These articles yielded a revenue of $60,962,079.63 in 1889, and of this amount 
$54,922,110.56 came from the one article of sugar. But the bill took from the free- 
list and subjected to taxation articles that the same year yielded about $3,500,000, 



TARIFF TAXATION. 189 

SO that the net reduction resulting from the manipulation of the free-list was about 
$57,462,097.63. 

Concerning the changes made in the dutiable schedules, the Democratic minor- 
ity of the Committee on Ways and Means say in their report : 

" It is impossible to state with entire accuracy how much the bill increases taxes 
upon imported goods, for the reason that there are many large increases of taxation 
made by it which are no exhibited in the tables submitted by the committee. 
Those table, show that, omitting the sugar schedule, there has been added to the 
duties on the articles still remaining on the dutiable list the sum of $40,055,152.33 ; 
but in addition to this, after January 1, 1894, the duties on brown and bleached 
linens, ducks, canvas, handkerchiefs, or other woven fabrics, composed of flax, 
liemp, or Jute, or of which flax, hemp, or jute, or either of them, shall be the com- 
ponent material of chief value, containing one hundred or more threads to the 
square inch, counting either the w^arp or filling, will be increased to the amount of 
$1,574,954.57 more than is shown by the tables; and after July 1, 1891, the duty on 
tin or terne plate will be $8,371,378.67 greater than it was last year upon the same 
importation, and the increase in the tobacco schedule is, as nearly as we can calcu- 
late it, $6,551,855.41 more than the tables show. 

"In our opinion, the increase in the tobacco schedule, resulting mainly from the 
imposition of a duty of $2.00 per pound on unstemm^ leaf for cigar wrappers, 
will be $16,305,925 instead of $9,754,069.59, as shown by the tables, and we are con- 
fident that an analysis of our importations of that article for a series of years past 
will sustain our position. 

"Even the comparatively brief examination we have been able to make has dis- 
closed other increases not shown by the calculations contained in the tables, 
amounting to the sum of over $8,000,000, and there are many others which can not 
be accurately ascertained for the want of sufiicient data as to prices and quantities 
of importations last year. Adding these amounts to the $40,055,152.33 shows a 
total increase of duties on articles still dutiable, outside of the sugar schedule, of 
about $65,000,000, and we are satisfied it is more than that." 

"We do not mean to assert that the bill actually increases the customs revenue 
$65,000,000 over what it is under existing law, but that it proposes to impose 
upon the articles that it leaves upon the dutiable schedule, except sugar and 
molasses that sum in excess of the amount collected on the same schedule last 
year," 

The theory of the bill is that the receipts can be curtailed by raising the rates 
of duty. This theory is, beyond controversy, correct ; the only question is as to 
the exact increase necessary so to " check imports " as to reduce the revenue. But 
the theory is to be worked out only by the imposition of higher taxes on the people. 
The quantity of goods imported is to be discriminated, but each unity of quantity 
is to pay a higher tax than it paid before, involving, of course, a corresponding ad- 
dition tr th cost of the domestic articles with which the imported goods come in 
competition. 

The taxes on nearly every necessary of life and the burdens on the people are 
thus increased. It will be sufficient to show here the increases in the various sched- 
ules, ak they were admitted by the authors of the bill, and as shown by the minority. 



190 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Table showing increases admitted by tlie majority under different scJiedules. 



Chemicals $ 87,189 74 

Earthenware, etc 331,770 90 

Metals 684,916 96 

Wood 64,483 06 

Sugar (above 16) 8,189 65 

Tobacco 9,754,069 59 

Agricultural, etc 8,553,510 56 

Spirits 35,427 86 



Cotton $ 491,772 94 

Flax 3,521,786 50 

Wool 15,493,002 94 

Silk 488,131 ^1 

Pulp, paper, etc 257,402 05 

Sundries 513,903 88 

Total $40,275,557 84 



This is about $25,000,000 short of the actual increase. - 

In closing the debate for the minority in the House, Hon. Benton McMillin, 
of the Ways and Means Committee, summed up the question and showed the 
methods employed in this legislation. Mr. McMillin said : 

*' Mr. Chairman : Through much tribulation, and by methods more speedy 
than commendable, we have reached the point where this bill is to be snatched 
from the committee of the whole unfinished, and forced through the House. 

" Let us, sir, pause long enough to see what it is. Its framers boast that they 
have put sugar on the free-list. Yes, they have, but they have with that overrid- 
den the Constitution and outraged justice by placing tax-payers under bondage for 
fifteen years to pay a bounty of between one and three hundred million dollars to 
sugar-producers. 

" Sir, we are now within fifteen minutes of the time when the final vote is to be 
taken upon tl^s bill, and it is proper that a statement of what it contains should 
be given to the House. We have been told that this is a Republican measure, to 
be passed by Republican votes. Now, the question is, what is an ideal Republican 
measure V Under the rule that has been adopted there are two hundred amend- 
ments pending before the committee and printed in the Becord that can never be 
considered. There are more than one hundred items proposed in this bill which 
make increases in the rates of duty, yet the Committee on Ways and Means has 
told us that it has no data and can give none to justify these increases. 

What more ? They have repealed the sugar tax only to put additional taxes on 
every other schedule. They haye increased chemicals $249,168; earthenware, 
$626,011; the metal schedule, $11,279,370; tobacco, $17,966,425; agricultural pro- 
ducts, $9,309,850; cotton goods, $1,553,324; hemp, flax and jute, $6,816,299; wool 
and manufactures of wool, $15,493,002; sundries, $1,907,405; and made very large 
increases on the other schedules that are embraced in this bill. The increases not 
estimated in the committee's calculations amount to $25,773,000. This added to 
what the committee confess they have increased makes the increase on the different 
schedules outside of sugar $66,49,000. Then they give a bounty on sugar amount- 
ing to $7,500,000. This does not include many increases as to which there are no 
data. 

I ask whether the House of Representatives is ready to take such a Republican 
measure. It is not only a Republican measure, but, as I stated last night, it is to be 
passed by Republican methods. You are called upon to vote ^.ipon these increases 
without debate and without hope of amendment. The committee has taken most 
of the two days, and not a single amendment has been adopted that has been off ered 
by any one else. 

The gentleman from Ohio said the amendments not acted on in Committee of 
the Whole would fall. Hence all opportunity to amend or discuss this vicious 
measure is gone. We were deprived of this right by an iron-clad rule made for 
the purpose. 

Sir, more than 100 of the 156 pages of the bill have had no consideration. The 



TARIFF TAXATION. 191 

right to reduce duties on tin-plate, woolen goods, cotton goods, chemicals, sundries, 
etc., has been destroyed by special rule, and the people's representatives stand 
powerless and their voices are stifled. [Applause on the Democratic side.] 

I submit to the committee a series of statements of those items, in which the 
data are easily accessible, that members disposed to do somay verify my assertions. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask your attention to the following paragraphs : 

Olive oil. It is assumed in the calculation of the committee that one-half 
the olive oil imported (454,045 gallons) only is fit for salad purposes, the rest being 
only fit for soap making. But soap-stock grease is already free, and therefore none 
fit only for that purpose pays duty now, and the whole importation would be liable 
for the 35 cents per gallon duty, an increase over the committee's estimate of 
$158,915.75. 

Blues, Berlin, Prussian, etc. Values about 25 cents per pound ; rate about 
S5 per cent, on $61,265 importations, an increase of $3,063. 

Fire-brick. Made dutiable at $1.25 per ton instead of 20 per cent, the 
present rate, no allowance made in tables for increase. They weigh about six 
pounds each, or 373 to the ton. Counting 400 to the ton we imported (6,439,852 
fire-brick or) more than 16,000 tons at $1.25 per ton, yielding $20,000, instead of 
$13,752.39, as given in the table on uncounted increase of $6,277. 

Cement, Koman, Portland, etc. In the tables weight of barrel is not com- 
l^uted, though made dutiable in the text. This would add 4 cents to each barrel; 
1,545,316 barrels, at 4 cents, would yield $60,612.64. 

Lime. Has been recokoned at 220 pounds per package, omitting the barrel, 
which is also made dutiable at the same rate, or about 15 cents per barrel on 
297,285 barrels, or $44,592.75, an uncounted increase of $5,351. 

Green and colored glassware Testimony before Ways and Means Com- 
mittee, page 450, shows rate on some smaller sizes of these bottles 94 per cent., 
and on those below it would be much over 100 per cent. If only 25 per cent, is 
estimated to be added there will be an increase of $40,000. 

All articles of glass, stained, painted, printed, etc., colored, etc. The present 
rate is 45 per cent., the proposed rate is 10 cents per pound, and 50 per cent., 
5 per cent, ad valorem added outright and 10 cents per pound, specific, and 10 cents 
per pound may be safely counted at 10 per cent, on average importations, which, 
with the 5 per cent, ad valorem added, equals an increase of 15 per cent, on 
$492,340.90 importations, or about $164,000. 

The rates would be far beyond this on the cheapest goods. 

On heavy-blown glassware. Five cents per pound is added to the pres- 
ent duty of 40 per cent., and at less than 5 per cent, increase would amount on 
$68,285 to over $3,000. 

Note that bottles which are heavy-blown glassware are entered at 1.6 cents per 
pound, on which 5 cents would be over 300 per cent. 

Freestone, granite, etc., for building and monumental purposes, increased 
from $1 per ton to 14 cents per cubic foot. Granite runs about 164 to 180 pounds 
to the cubic foot, or about 13 feet to the ton, and freestone, being lighter, would be 
more, or over $2 per ton— $15,000. 

Cotton-ties. Two-tenths cent per pound additional for cutting not reck- 
oned in the tables, yielding a total of $1,013,595.93, or an uncounted increase of 
$135,146. 

Tin-plate raised after July 1, 1891, from 1 cent per pound to 2.15 cents 
•per pound, an increase, uncounted in the tables, of $8,371,379. 



192 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Wire rods for fencing, etc., are counted to yield the same revenue as at 
present, though the rods of steel under No. 5 now pay 45 per cent., and the change 
to six-tenths raises them to 54 per cent., an uncounted increase of $103,391. 

Wire of iron and steel. In the table decreases in rate and duty are shown 
on all wires according to the proposed nominal specific rates, though a proviso on 
page 31 forbids the entry of any wire worth 4 cents per pound or more at a less 
rate of duty than 45 per cent., thus quadrupling some rates and giving an un- 
counted increase over the tables of more than $126,000, though the majority report 
erroneously claims to have reduced the duty on most wire one-fourth of one cent 
per pound. 

Chains. The table shows reductions to 43 per cent., though a proviso for- 
bids entry of any chains at less than 45 per cent., or an uncounted increase on 
the smallest size (thus by indirection raising trace-chains for the benefit of the 
farmer) of over $1,500. 

Penknives. Razors valued at $4 have no rate named on them; but if the 
$1.75 rate governs, as is evidently intended, it raises the rate to 73 per cent., on the 
cheaper razors much higher. On penknives rates are raised from 70 to 100 per 
cent. If 75 per cent, be taken as a fair estimate of the new rate it would be a 50 
per cent, increase on present duties, or an increase uncounted in the tables of 
$414,885. 

The proposed table-cutlery rates run as high as 99 per cent., while on 
cheap fruit and other knives it would be away beyond a hundred per cent., or 
trebled. Counting the average at 52.50 per cent., or an increase of only 17^ per 
cent., it gives an amount to add to the estimates of $119,154. 

Shotguns. The rates are more than doubled on the bulk of the importa- 
tions, as shown by the testimony before the committee (see committee testimony, 
page 1,254), an uncounted increase of over $250,000. 

But, Mr. Chairman, since these calculations were made the committee have 
changed the proposed rate and reduced the duty. It is a rare instance of the com- 
mittee becoming convinced of the error of its way, and due credit should be given. 

Screws. One-inch screws, a standard size, apparently reduced from 8 cents 
to 7, but in reality raised by a change in classification to 10 cents, apparently for 
no good reason, as none are imported, since the duty is now prohibitory. 

Bronze powder. Rate changed from 15 per cent, to 15 cents per jDOund, 
or 30 per cent, (see Randall's bill 9702), an uncounted increase of $78,867. 

Type metal. From 20 per cent, to li cents for the lead contained therein. 
According to the Senate report this would seem to be a 50 per cent, duty, an 
increase of $13,937.70. 

Lead-bearing silver ores, free. Made dutiable at the rate of H cents per 
pound for the lead contained therein. In the report or the Director of the Mint 
for 1889 (page 28) the amount of lead imported into the United States in silver ores 
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, is given as 58,679,609 pounds of metallic 
lead, which at li cents per pound, the proposed rate, would yield $880,194.13. 

This statement is probably high, though taken by the collectors of customs at 
the southern border ports and returned to the Bureau of Statistics, from which the 
mint director received and adopted it. We imported 118,322 tons of silver ores — 
nearly 10,000 tons per month — but an ever-increasing proportion is of the more re- 
fractory, non-lead-bearing, or dry ores. Of these 10,000 tons per month one-half 
go to Newark, St. Louis, Kansas City, Argentine and Colorado, and another thous- 
and to Socorro, New Mexico, at an average freight of $8 per ton, or $48,000 per 
month to the railroads, or $576,000 per annum. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 193 

These smelting points pay the roads beside for freights on dry and other ores 
from other points in the States, for fuel, for supplies, and after freights on their 
products at least a million more per annum, so that the exclusion of these ores will 
not only deprive the railroads in the United States of a million and a-half dollars 
in freights, which must have the effect, however remote, of increasing rates on other 
carriage, but must, too, destroy in part the value of some of these works, which can 
only be operated with the aid of these fluxing ores, deprive of employment those 
who depend directly or indirectly upon their operation, and thereby injure that 
home market both for refractory ores and for general supplies — that home market 
of which we hear so much and of which we are growing to be so tender, that only 
the protected may sell and only the buyers are taxed. 

Gold watches and cases, raised from 25 to 40 per cent. — about $100,000. 

Schedule E— Tobacco. 

Sir, under the new tariff bill, and as calculated by the committee, we would 
receive in customs duties on cigars, cigarettes, snuff, manufactured tobacco, and 
unmanufactured tobacco not otherwise provided for, the sum of $6,579,338.45 on 
importations like last year. , 

The great increase of duties for which due allowance has not been made by 
the committee is upon wrapper-leaf, which has been raised from 35 and 75 cents 
per pound to $2,00 per pound for unstemmed and $2.75 for stemmed. 

Notwithstanding this enormous increase of duty it will not effect the exclusion 
of the Sumtra wrapper, which in the opinion of tobacco men has come to stay. 

Mr, Barnett told this committee (see testimony, page 958) : 

Every time you put on a duty which is intended to be prohibitory of Sumatra you will 
increase the difficulties of the Government by increasing the surplus, unless you make 
the duty over $3 per pound. 

Of the more than 18,000,000 pounds of foreign tobacco which entered into 
consumption last year it is easy to calculate approximately what proportion was 
of wrapper-leaf and what proportion filler. 

In the testimony taken before the Senate committee when at work upon their 
bill (page 803) they were told that " the only tobacco fillers we import are from 
Havana;" and Mr. Ertheiier, tobacco broker, of New York, informed this commit- 
tee (page 966) that " I claim there is not a bale of Havana tobacco imported which 
does not contain some wrapper leaves," which under the bill would make every 
pound ot tobacco which we import subject to the duty of $3 per pound, or nearly 
$40,000,000 on lear tobacco alone last year. 

But to take only that imported for the purpose of wrapping cigars is more 
fair. In 1886 Mr. Oscar Hammerstein, editor of the United States Tobacco Journal^ 
told the Ways and Means Committee that one-fifth of the Havana importations, 
2,000,000 pounds, or 10,000 bales out of 50,000, were brought in for wrappers, and 
the same year 4,000,000 pounds of Sumatra were imported for the same purpose, 
or 6,000,000 pounds out of a total importation of 11,000,000. About the same pro- 
portion holds good to-day, and the majority of the committee are evidently of that 
opinion, since they calculate one-fifth the Havana tobacco is wrappers, and then 
proceed to take one-fifth of all the leaf coming in at 35 cents per pound, thus mak- 
ing allowance for but 1,500,000 of Sumatra tobacco. 

Mr. Hubbard, of the New England Tobacco-Growers' Association, informed 
the committee (page 1000) that over 42,000 bales of Sumatra tobacco came in in the 
calendar year 1889, and this is borne out by Consular Report No. 113 (page 199), 
25 



194 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

and that 50,000 bales were used as cigar wrappers in that year, or 9,000,000 pounds, 
to say nothing of the 1,500,000 pounds of wrapper leaf which came in that year from 
the French possessions in Africa (a leaf much resembling the Sumatra), from 
Canada, and from other places, or over 10,000,000 pounds foreign wrapper leaf 
where the committee counted 1,500,000, and 2,500,000 pounds Havana wrappers 
would bring the amount to 12,500,000 pounds, evidently too high ; but four-fifths of 
the Havana importation, 8,500,000 pounds, are for fillers, of which 852,745 pounds 
came in stemmed, which would yield a revenue of $426,372.75 and the balance, 
7,600,000 pounds at the unstemmed filler rate would yield $2,676,539, or a total of 
$3,102, 911 from filler tobacco, while the 9,800,000 pounds of wrapper leaf at $2 per 
pound would yield $19,600,000, or a grand total from the tobacco schedule of 
$29,282,250 instead of $11,194,486, or an increase of $18,000,000 over the receipts at 
present rates, instead of $9,754,069 as shown by the committee estimates. 

Horses. For breeding purposes, now free, are limited by requiring them 
to be registered. 

We imported 1,340 ponies from Mexico free last year for breeding sheep ponies 
at an average valuation of $7 per head. To say these were not registered is no 
wild statement, but it subjects them to $30 per head duty — $40,000. 

From France and England we received 2,500 horses, and count them all as 
registered, which is far from the fact, it would leave 6,000 horses unregistered, which 
came at a rate of 30 per cent., that would amount, moderately estimated, to $350,000. 

Cattle. In the committee's tables half the importations of cattle are reck- 
oned as yearlings, clearly an overestimate, but a matter of little importance, 
though a fairer estimate would increase the receipts more than $100,000 ; and breed- 
ing cattle not registered, $25,000; total, $125,000. 

Hogs. Breeding hogs not registered, $15,000. 

Breeding sheep not registered, $8,000. 

Condensed milk. See Senate testimony (page 835). Worth 9^ cents per 
pound in Great Britain ; 3 cents per pound, or 13 per cent, increase on a value of 
$83,272 ; an uncounted increase of $10,000. 

Grapes. No allowance for increase, though raised from 20 per cent, to 
2 cents per pound, or about 50 per cent, {see Randall's, 9702), $100,000. 

Limes. Changed to specific rates which more than double the duties, adding 
$13,689.39, or just about offsetting the error above in lemons, where values were 
substituted for duties— $13,689.39. 

Oranges and lemons. Rate of 20 cents per foot is 45 per cent, on oranges, 
the 20 cents additional adds 25 per cent, to present 20 per cent, rate, or $78,504.97. 

Extract of meat. Now 20 per cent., made 35 cents per pound if solid, 15 
cents if fluid. Tins and jars also dutiable at same rates. (Testimony, page 913.) 
Glass weighs twice as much as contents, and by implication 10 cents equals 20 per 
cent, rate, 15 cents equals 30, doubled for glass equals 90 per cent. — $20,000 increae. 

Poultry. Now 10 per cent., made 3 and 5 cents; at least 33^ per cent., or 
$51,622 ; an increase over tables of $36,136. 

Stockings, shirts, and drawers. Increased to rates exceeding in some in- 
stances 85 per cent.; if only a half increase be computed it exceeds $1,050,728. 
Shirts and drawers increased to an average of over 60 per cent. — $10,823.66. 

Burlaps. Increased to 70 per cent, from 30 per cent, (see Senate testi- 
mony page 1077), or duty more than doubled and no allowance made for increase — 
$1,500,000. 

Flax gill-netting. Duties more than doubled. Fifteen cents and 20 cents 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



195 



per pound, and 35 per cent. No allowance for increase from 25 per cent. — 
$8,170.87. 

Linens, ducks, etc. Three cents per pound on total importations. No 
estimate given. Importers' estimates show 63 to 116 per cent. A more moderate 
estimate would yield above committee's estimates $749,863.84. 

Brown and bleached linens, etc. One-third importations are counted at 
35 per cent, as shirtings, etc. This is too high. The other third will have the 
duty doubled by reason of the compound rate, or an increase over estimates of 
$995,253.15. 

Manufactures of flax and hemp. Includes yarns which, by section 369, 
are taxed 3 cents per pound for 12 lea and coarser, practically all we import, an 
increase of $41,725.29. 

Buttons. By the new compound rates it was shown to the committee 
(page 715), rates were raised on buttons to as high as 900 per cent., and on the 
class of buttons used "by the poorer classes for their better garments" 150 to 200 
per cent. If only 25 per cent, increase is estimated it is $682,089. 

Cork bark. Cut into squares, now free, are taxed 10 cents per pound, 
and nearly 50 per cent, added to the duties on lower grade cut corks by a change 
from 20 per cent, to 15 cents per pound, or $30,000. 

Gloves. Rates largely increased on lower grades. (See letter in Senate 
testimony, page 431.) Average value of kid gloves $3.25, 235,000 imported; 
average value of lambskin $2, and 365,000 imported. 

Rates on the above, 95 per cent, on lambskin and 66 per cent, on kid. Count- 
ing only 15 per cent, increase on present rates there is an uncounted increase of 
$686,413. 

Recapitulation of Increases o'oer the Committee^ s Estimates. 



Olive oil % 158,915 75 

Blues, Prussian, etc 3,063 00 

Fire-brick 6,277 00 

Cement, Roman, Portland, etc.. 60,613 64 

Lime 5,351 00 

Green and colored glassware. . . 40,000 00 

Glass, stained, etc 164,000 00 

Glass w are, heavy blown 3,000 00 

Granite, f reestotie, etc 15,000 00 

Cotton ties 135,148 00 

Tin plate 8,371,379 00 

Wire rods 103,39100 

Wire, of iron and steel 126,000 00 

Chains 1,500 00 

Penknives, etc 414,885 00 

Table cutlery 119,154 00 

Shotguns 350,000 00 

Bronze powder 78,867 00 

Typemetal 13,937 70 

fiold watches and cases— guess.. 100,000 00 

Tobacco 8,213,356 00 

Horses, free 350,000 00 



Cattle $ 125,000 00 

Hogs 15,000 00 

Sheep 8,000 00 

Condensed milk 10,000 00 

Grapes 100,000 00 

Limes 13,689 39 

Oranges 78,504 97 

Extract of meat 30,000 00 

Poultry 36,136 00 

Stockings 1,050,728 00 

Shirts and drawers 10,823 66 

Burlaps 1,500,000 00 

Flax gill-netting 8,170 87 

Linens, ducks, etc 749,363 84 

Linens, ducks, etc 995,253 15 

Manufactures of flax and hemp. -41 725 00 

Buttons 682 0H9 00 

Cork 30,000 00 

Gloves 686,413 00 

Lead-bearing silver ore 880,194 00 

Total. $25,773,925 97 



Mr. Chairman, I have not added to committee's estimates on the woolen sched- 
ule, though somewhat increased during the consideration of the bill. 

Our total consumption of raw wool is estimated at 600,000,000 pounds. Of 
this, 160,000,000 pounds come in already manufactured, leaving 440,000,000 to be 
manufactured here. Of this, 100,000,000 pounds are carpet wools, which pay 3 
cents per pound duty, and therefore dearer by $3,000,000 than it would be without 
the tariff. 

The balance of the home-manufactured wool is combing and clothing wool, 



196 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

and pays, under the rates levied, 10 cents a pound on an average, and therefore we 
would have 340,000,000 pounds enhanced 10 cents per pound, or $34,000,000 by 
reason of the tariff, which, with the $3,000,000 on carpet wools, makes $37,000,- 
000, of which the United States Treasury gets less than $6,000,000, and over 
$30,000,000 is a useless burden. 

Mr. Chairman, let us illustrate further this increase of taxes. According to 
the McKinley report our total consumption of wool, as just stated, is fixed at 
600,000,000 pounds, of which the importations of manufactured goods represent 
160,000,000 pounds. 

Duty-paid, these imported manufactured wools are worth about $100,000,000, 
and in the^ same proportion our domestic consumption would be worth about 
$375,000,000. 

If the domestic product is enhanced to the amount of the duty, as Chairman 
McKinley argues, on sugar, then the value of the domestic woolens is enhanced 
$110,000,000 at 67 per cent., the present rate, and would be increased $151,000,000 
at 92 per cent., the average rate fixed in the proposed bill, or an increase of 
$41,000,000 on domestic manufactures, while the imported goods are increased by 
thirteen millions, or a total of $54,000,000 enhancement is proposed by the new bill 
on our entire consumption. 

The foreign valuation of our manufactured woolens would be $165,000,000. 
The duty under the new bill would be $151,000,000, the whole duty on the foreign 
goods $48,000,000, or a total of $200,000,000, which our protective tariff would cost 
us on woolen goods alone if this bill becomes a law. 

Sir, this does not include $75,000,000 worth of textiles, which under the pro- 
posed bill must pay the higher duties imposed on woolen goods whether wool be 
the material of chief value or not, which is not the case under the present law. 
Now the duty is assessed on the component of chief value, and generally lower than 
the duty on woolens. 

Mr. Chairman, similiar calculations might be made on iron and all the other 
schedules except " sugar " and " wines and liquors," showing an increase of burdens, 
direct and indirect, imposed upon the people by this bill appalling in its propor- 
tions. A high Republican authority has estimated this increase to be not less than 
$237,000,000 annually. This, I am satisfied after careful examination, is a very 
conservative estimate, more than $3.50 a year for each inhabitant, or $17.50 to every 
family in the land. 

Sir, the people have asked you to reduce their taxes and you have increased 
them. " They asked you for bread ; you have given them a stone." 

The Bill in the Senate. 

The beneficiaries of our tariff laws fully realized that this is probably the last 
time, at least for many years, that they will be afforded an opportunity to exact 
from the people the whole measure of their desires, through a Congress Republican 
in both branches, and a President placed in the White House by the corruption 
resulting from their contributions to thfr campaign fund, so they stood upon their 
bond and demanded the full pound of flesh, without penalty for the drawing of 
blood. 

The Tariff bill as reported to the Senate from the Committee on Finance, was 
changed somewhat from what it was when it passed the House ; changed princi- 
pally by way of increases, though it made some reductions from the rates estab- 
lished by the House. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



197 



Here it is important to point, out some of the features of the bill, and incident- 
ally some of the alterations made in it before it was finally passed. 

The Senate struck out the reductions in the internal revenue, but the confer- 
ence committee reinserted the provision repealing the special taxes, and made a 
reduction of 2 cents per pound on tobacco, etc., instead of 4 cents, as made by 
the House. This will make half the reduction on tobacco, etc., made by the House, 
plus the amount of the special taxes. 

Sugar. The House placed sugar up to and including No. 16 Dutch standard 
on the free list and levied a duty of four-tenths of a cent per pound on all above 
No. 16. This reduced the revenue $54,896,437.38. In lieu of the duty on sugar 
thus abolished, a bounty of 2 cents per pound out of the public treasury was 
granted to the domestic producers on all sugars polarizing 80 degress. 

The total cost to the Treasury of free foreign sugar with a bounty of 2 cents 
per pound for the home product may be tabulated as follows on the returns for 
the year 1889 : 

Duties on sugar imported during the year ending June 30, 1889, 2,762,202,967 

pounds, at an average specific rate of duty of 2.03 cents per pound $54,896,437 88 

Sugar produced in Louisiana during the year ending June 30, 1889, 377,933,124 

pounds, at 2 cents bounty 7,558,662 48 

Sugar produced in other States, 20.229,440 pounds, at 2 cents bounty 404,558 80 

Beet sugar produced in California, 5,600,000 pounds, at 2 cents bounty 112,000 00 

Sugar from sorghum, 1,500,000 pounds, at 2 cents bounty 30,000 00 

Total cost $63,001,688 66 

The bounty on the sugar product of 1889 would be as follows : 

Domestic cane product $7,963,251 28 

Domestic beet product, 112,000 00 

Domestic sorghum product 30,000 00 

$8,105,251 ^ 

That is to say, for the first year these provisions would cost the Treasury over 
$63,000,000. But to supply the present demand for domestic consumption our 
domestic production will have to increase 2,700,422,202 pounds. The bounty is to 
continue until July 1, 1905, 15 years, and its purpose is to increase our production 
until it becomes at least equal to domestic consumption. It must, then, increase at 
the rate of 180,028,147 pounds per annum, even if consumption does not increase. 
The following table will show the cost of the bounty alone if the prophecies of the 
"Ways and Means Committee are realized upon that basis : 



Year. 


Annual pro- 
duct. 


Bounty, 2 cts. 
per pound. 


1891 


555,884,024 
735,912,171 
915,940,318 
1,095,968,465 
1,275,996,612 
1,456,024,759 
1,636,052,906 
1,816,081,053 
1,986,109,200 
2,176,137,347 
2,356,164,494 
2,536,193,641 
2,716,221,788 
2,896,249,935 
3,076,277,079 


$11 117 680 48 


1892 


14,718,243 42 
18,318,806 36 
21,919,369 30 
25,519,933 24 
29,120,495 18 
32,721,058 12 
36,321,621 06 
39,922,184 00 
43,522,746 94 
47,123,309 88 
50,723,872 82 
54,324,435 76 
57,924,998 70 
61,525,561 64 


1893 


1894 


1895 


1896 


1897 


1898 


1899 


1900 


1901 


1902 


1903 


1994 


1905 




Total 




$544,824,315 90' 







198 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

But our population increases at the rate of over 30 per cent, per decade. It is 
now about 64,000,000. In ten years it will be about 84,000,000, and in fifteen years 
it will be at least 110,000,000. This will increase our consumption a little less than 
three-fourths, and the payment of bounty for the last year under the law will be, 
in round numbers, 114,500,000. This is the price that the Republican House charges 
the people for putting sugar on the free list in'order that it may increase taxation 
on everything that they use, and that represents merely what will be transferred 
from the pockets of those who use sugar to the coffers of those who produce that 
article, without the slightest compensation in the world. If sugar is made cheaper 
by the bounty, of course consumption per capita will increase, thus increasing the 
bounty. 

To find the cost to the treasury the annually increasing revenue that would 
come from existing duties for fifteen years, must be added to the amount stated. 

The Senate changed these provisions by placing sugar up to and including 
only No. 13 Dutch standard on the free list, adding a bounty of two cents on maple 
sugar, confining the bounty to those who produced not less than 500 pounds per 
year, and levying a duty of three-tenths of a cent per pound on all sugars between 
Nos. 13 and 16, Dutch standard, and six-tenths on all above No. 16. It provided 
also that this bounty allowance should take effect March 1, 1891. 

The bill as it came from conference provides for free sugar up to and including 
No. 16, a duty of j% of a cent a pound on all above that number, and for -^-q of a 
cent additional on all importations of sugar produced in any country which pays a 
greater export bounty on sugar above No. 16 than it pays on that below that num- 
ber. On all domestic sugar polarizing 90 degrees and above, a bounty of 2 cents 
per pound is allowed, and all polarizing less than 90 and not less than 80 degrees,, 
is to receive a bounty of If cents per pound. 

This provision is more in the interest of the surgar refiners — the sugar trust, 
than the other provisions were, but will not affect what has been said concerning 
the bounty. Refining will be carried further. Maple sugar remains in the bill. 

This was added by the Senate : 

That all machinery purchased abroad and erected in a beet-sugar factory for the 
manufacture of beet sugar in the United States from beets produced therein shall be 
admitted duty free until the first day of July, 1892: Provided further. That any duty 
collected on any of the above-descrioed machinery purchased abroad and imported into 
the United States for the uses above indicated since Janua.ry 1st, 1890, shall be refunded 

It is understood that Mr, Claus Spreckles and some other sugar men have 
imported machinery on which they have been property taxed, according to law, 
and, as the tax is only for poor folks, they must have the treasury refund what 
they have paid and collect no more. 

Here is another confession that the tariff is a tax. 

• 

The Senate also added this provision : 

That with a view to secure reciprocal trade with countries producing the following 
articles, and for this purpose, on and after the first day of July, 1891, whenever, and so 
often as the President shall be satisfied that the Government of any country producing 
and exporting sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, raw and uncured, or any of such 
articles, imposes duties or other exactions upon the agricultural or other products of 
the United States, which in view of the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, coffee, 
tea, and hides into the United States he may deem to be reciprocally unequel and un- 
reasonable, he shall have the power and it shall be his duty to suspend, by proclamation 
to that effect, the provisions of this act relating to the free introduction of such sugar, 
molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, the production of such country, for such time as he shall 
deem just, and in such case and during such suspension duties shall be levied, collected, 
and paid upon sugar, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, the product of or exported from 
such designated country as follows, namely : 

All sugars not above number thirteen Dutch standard in color shall pay duty on their 
polariscopic tests as follows, namely : 



TARIFF TAXATION. 199 

All sugars not above number thirteen Dutch istandard in color, all tank bottoms, 
•sirup of cane juice or of beet juice, melada, concentrated melada, concrete and concen- 
trated molasses, testing by the polariscope not above seventy-flve degrees, seven-tenths 
of one cent per pound ; and for every additional degree or fraction of a degree shown by 
the polariscopic test, two hundredths of one cent per pound additional. 

All sugars above number thirteen Dutch standard in color shall be classified by the 
'Dutch standard of color, and pay duty as follows, namely : All sugar above number thir- 
teen and not above number sixteen Dutch standard of color, one and three-eighths cents 
per pound. 

All sugar above number sixteen and not above number twenty Dutch standard of 
<jolor, one and five-eighths cents per pound. 

All sugars above number twenty Dutch standard of color, two cents per pound. 

Molasses testmg above fifty-six degrees, four cents per gallon. 

Sugar drainings and sugar sweepings shall be subject to duty either as molasses or 
sugar, as the case may be, according to polariscopic test. 

On coffee, three cents per pound, 
n On tea, ten cents per pound. 

" Hides, raw or uncured, whether dry, salted or pickled. Angora goat skins, raw, with- 
out the wool, unmanufactured, asses' skins, raw or unmanufactured, and skins, except 
sheep skins, with the wool on, one and one-half cents per pound. 

Senator Evarts proposed to amend this provision by having the President 
•communicate to Congress information, whenever obtained, as to the failure of any- 
country to reciprocate and then to have Congress fix the duties to suit itself. 
Speaking on his amendment, he laid bare this -whole foolhardy business of con- 
ferring upon the President the power to say what taxes the people shall pay. 

Among other things. Senator Evarts said : " No case be found, no law propos- 
ition can be founds that leaves it to the President to enact arrangements of our 
levenue system upon his deliberation of what are fair and proper equivalents be- 
tween nations in that regard. Now, the closest approach to it is the fifth section of 
the protection act' against unsuitable food brought into this country." 

What is th6 need of that bill ? That is not a revenue bill, that is not a bill 
which changes the execution of the revenue laws of the country ; it proceeds upon 
the basis that the subject-matter of that bill is taken out of revenue and taken out 
•of commerce, and the consequence is that when contrary to the prohibition of that 
act articles are introduced here, they are not subjected to duty ; they are de- 
stroyed, and you notice in that bill that this provision is made wholly outside of 
revenue, and wholly outside of the constitutional provision for raising revenue. 
Not only this vital and conclusive proposition, but upon the provision therein that 
certain ports may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury into which only 
such articles, not of commerce, but of prohibition and destruction, are to be 
iDrought in order that the exercise of this power of destruction may be at the com- 
mand of the Government, capable of right enforcement. 

Is there any right under our Constitution and revenue system to say what can 
"be brought into one port and what can be brought into another ? The fifth section, 
disassociated from the frame of the bill and the purpose of the bill, may be read as 
to liberating the operation of that bill from the restriction that I have mentioned ; 
but no one will construe that provision except as a part of and associated with all 
the rest of that bill ; and if it be dissected and treated as separate it does not in- 
volve at all these questions that I am now discussing. 

Now, Mr. President, how about the trust bill and the proposed amendment to 
it which was rejected and does not appear in the act ? That amendment provided 
for an accertainment by the President of a state of fact prohibited by law and pro- 
vided the consequence to follow. That was it, and that was all there was of it. 

Sir, it is not as difficult to draw the line completely as to what would be an 
assumption of executive power by Congress as it is with regard to the question of 
extending to executive power what belongs to executive power and yet might run 
into the exercise by the executive of what belongs to the law-making power. 



200 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

We all know that if Congress assumed the appointment to office, it would be an 
assumption of the executive function, and it would be judicially declared void. 
When we come, however, by this supreme legislative w^ll of the two houses to say 
what authority they will give to the agent and instrument of the Constitution and 
what they will withhold in executing its laws, on what external facts this discre- 
tion may be left to turn upon a commerce or revenue act, it is not easy perhaps 
for us either to insist that any particular measure is lawful or to resist it as un- 
lawful. 

Bui the clause of the committee's amendment is a clear and open proposition to give 
to the President within the purview of these named barter articles on our part the whole 
power over foreign treatment responsive to our legislation as to ichether this responsive 
equivalent is or is not commensurate with the definite concession which Congress itself on 
our part has made. There is the difficulty ; there is the insurmountable difficidty of 
deputing to executive authority an ascertainment that he will put a duty on articles im- 
ported from certain countries into this country if he thinks that imposition is justified by 
inequalities of treatment by foreign countries on the whole range of our revenue. 

Now, this whole system of our manufacturing interests is intrusted to the dis- 
cretion of the President as to whether by and large, on the whole, there is a due 
or there fails to be a due exchange of equivalents between all the nations of the 
earth that are affected by our barter that we propose. Can Senators offer an argu- 
ment that, under our Constitution, this demission by Congress and this vesting it 
in the President is not placing in him the power to make a treaty or a quasi treaty, 
or an arrangement in that nature, without the Senate ; or to raise revenue or remit 
it without the action of the House of Representatives, with which that power 
under the Constitution must originate ? 

NoWy sir, this cannot be blinked, nor is it a question of crimination and recrimina- 
tion between parties. It is a pure question of the duty of Congress in holding within its 
hand the power of laying revenue and distributing in its discretion the burdens that it 
would impose. 

If we pass a section in the tariff bill making sugar free and declare that if 
other nations do not respond to this freedom by admitting free this or that article 
of exportation to them from this country, and the President should find a refusal 
of reciprocal freedom, upon ascertaining this fact should be instructed to reimpose 
the duty on sugar, his action would be within the range of executive execution of 
the will of Congress — that is to say. Congress would define the required equivalent 
of free admission to foreign countries of the named machinery or agricultural pro- 
ducts which would be commensurate with the free admission to the named article 
of sugar or whatever else is included in the list, and it would be by the will of 
Congress and not a judgment or a weighing or a measuring by the President of 
this matter of equivalents. 

Mr. President, I have said all that I need to say. We have nothing to do with 
the question of equivalents by treaty. We have nothing to do with the question 
of authority to the President to ascertain and act upon events which Congress 
defines as in the region of shipping. We are saying to the President : " We have 
taken certain articles out of the duty and revenue scheme and made them free ; 
when you find that other countries, all the countries that come within the purview 
of hides or sugar or coffee, in all the scheme and range of their tariff system do not 
give us a good quid pro quo, then you can reimpose the duties." And that is said 
to be an execution of the will of Congress. It is a will of Congress, if it be 
valid, that we abdicate the revenue and the treaty scheme and leave it for the 
nonce to the President. 



TARIFF TAXATION.- 201" 

The distinction between specifying a particular fact, the discovery of which 
may be the occasion of executive action, and the vesting in the executive of the dis- 
cretion as to when it will be proper for him to declare the imposition or remission 
of taxes, is so clearly drawn by Senator Evarts that no Democratic authority need 
l)e cited. 

But the whole scheme is delusive, and it would be only charitable to the inteli- 
gence of its authors to say that they intended it to be so. It was inserted in order 
that the advocates of the new tariff bill might make a pretense of answering before 
the people Secretary Blaine's indictment of that measure, when he said that it would 
not open a market to another bushel of wheat or another barrel of pork, it had 
other purposes. It afforded the Repulbicans an opportunity to sneak into the 
■dutiable schedules some articles that they did not have the courage to put there 
openly, and thus to supply a part at least of the revenue that their reckless extrav- 
agance and exorbitant taxation had made necessary. Tea, co#ee and sugar, repre- 
senting the " free breakfast table," would be subjected to duty; and hides, as to 
w^hich the Ways and Means Committee found itself between the devil and the deep 
sea, could be taxed without the leather manufacturing branch of the party's 
owners threatening that the tax on their raw material would prevent the exuda- 
tion of " fat." 

Of course the miserable deception as to making a market in Spanish- Ameri- 
can countries for our agricultural products is almost too contemptible for serious 
consideration. All those countries, so far as they are industrial at all, are agri- 
cultural countries. They do not want our farm products. If they want any 
thing from us, they want the products of our manufacturing establishments which 
the concoctors of this scheme all represent. The assumption that our farmers will 
fall into line and shout themselves hoarse in support of this subterfuge is an as- 
sumption that the farmers are fools. 

These countries are mainly tropical, with here and there localities where they 
can raise, if they desire, such quantities of agricultural products, such as we raj^e, 
to supply themselves. They do not require a great deal of these things and they 
do not buy them in large quantities. 

The population is about 50,000,000, being from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 more 
than the population of the kingdom of Great Britain, or of Germany or France, It 
13 worth while, then, to make some comparisons among the foreign customers who 
take our agricultural products, in order that it may be seen where we must look for 
reciprocity that will reciprocate. 

Take the great staples of our farms, according to last year's official reports : 

LIVE CATTLE. 



Total exports $16,616,917 

England and Scotland took 16,189,a59 

Cuba 318 



Totalexports $ a53,490 

England, Scotland, Ireland 616,547 

€uba none 



Bushels. 

Total exports 69,592,929 

England, Scotland, Ireland 41,096,727 

Cuba.. 145,525 



Porto Rico none 

All South America $ 54,410 



Porto Rico none 

All South America $ 52 



_ Bushels. 

Porto Rico 3,135 

All South America 314,244 



202 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



OATMEAL. 



Pounds. 

Total exports 10,210,413 

England and Scotland 9,641,329 

Cuba none 



Porto Rico 

All South America. 



Pounds-, 
none 
l,40a 



Bushels. 

Total exports 46,414,129 

England, Scotland, Ireland 31,568,506 

France 7,655,176 

Portugal 1,906,732 



Cuba 

Porto Rico 

All South America. 



Bushels. 



none 

812,821 



WHEAT FLOUR. 



Barrels. 

Total exports 9,374,803 

England, Scotland, Ireland 4,271,344 

Cuba 243,151 



Porto Rico 

All South America. 



Barrels. 
12Q,946. 
932,617 



Pounds. 

Total exports ,... 12,589,262 

England alone 11,386,087 

Cuba 2,107 



Porto Rico 

All South America. 



Pounds. 

2,8ia 

15,152 



CANNED BEEF. 



Pounds. 

Total exports 51,025,254 

England, Scotland, Ireland 37,333,528 

France 3,544,998 

Germany 2,226,793 



Quebec, Ontario, etc . 

Cuba 

Porto Rico 

All South Amarica. . . 



Pounds. 

5,939,965 

1,116 

2,8ia 

109,877 



FRESH BEEF. 



Pounds. 

Total exports 137,895,391 

England and Scotland 137,286,553 

Cuba 2,515 



Porto Rico 

All South America. 



Pounds, 
none 
none 



SALTED BEEF. 



Pounds. 

Total exports 55,006,391 

England and Scotland 31,781,119 

France ; 1,597,691 

Germany 2,422,775 



Pounds. 

Cuba 75,50a 

Porto Rico 47,400 

All South America 642,208 



Pounds. 

Total exports 77,844,555 

England, Scotland, Ireland 34,858,526 

France 2,478,399 

Germany , 1,279,614 



Pounds. 

N etherlands 28,321,849 

Cuba 62,792 

Porto Rico 8,684 

All South America 167,931 



pickle::) pork. 



Pounds. 

Total exports. 64,110,845 

England and Scotland 14,912,087 

Quebec 16,389,233 

Newfoundland and Labrador .... 2,993,901 
British West Indies . , , 8,003,173 



Pounds. 

British Guiana 3,258.4'rO 

Cuba 713,200 

Porto Rico 2,871,400 

All South America 512,290 



Pounds. 

Total exports 357,377,399 

England and Scotland 299,796,456 

§!uebec and Ontario 28,556,591 
weden and Norway 3,632,824 



Pounds. 

Cuba 3,621 

Porto Rico 784 

All South America 1,091,561 



Pounds. 

Total exports 42,847,247 

England and Scotland 34,766,806 

Quebec, etc 1,908,868 



Pounds. 

Cuba 3,319,956 

Porto Rico 540,186 

All South America 778,354 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



203 



Pounds. 

Total exports 84,999,828 

England and Scotland 72,304,393 

Quebec, etc 10,829,027 



Cuba 

Porto Rico 

All South America. 



Pounds. 

55,695 

118,363 

247,091 



Pounds. 

Total exports 318,242,990 

England, Scotland, Ireland 365,139,325 

Denmark 11,256,296 

France 29,326,634 

Germany 48,664,002 



Pounds. 

8uebec 13,903,391 
uba 30,096,838 

Porto Rico 3,101,6S 

All South America 16,633,488 



Pounds. 

Total exports 15,504,978 

England and Scotland 7,454,107 

Trance 973,815 

British West Indies 1,560,952 



Cuba 

Porto Rico 

All South America. 



CLOVER SEEDS. 



Quebec 

Cuba 

Porto Rico 

All South Americs. 



Pounds. 
112,209 

68,425 
965,428 



Pounds. 

4,332,092 

34,025 



Pounds. 

Total exports 34,253,157 

Belgium 1,054,163 

Denmark 1,001,170 

French possessions 10,568,140 

England, Scotland, Ireland 6,624,373 

The total value of our exports of such articles to Mexico the same year 
Avas $1,377,154. 

In the matter of cotton, the following will speak for itself : 

Cotton goods shipped to South America, Cuba and Porto Rico, from England and 

the United States. 



South America 

€uba and Porto Rico. 



United States. 



$2,779,086 
144,907 



England. 



$35,814,681 
3,268,477 



We now let in free ever ninety per cent, of our imports from South America. 

Of course, so far as China and Japan are concerned, the proposition is that 
our farmers and others shall pay all costs of transporting their products to those 
countries, there to compete with Chinese and Japanese " pauper labor." The only 
redeeming feature is that China and Japan take practically nothing, and less than 
ten per cent, are agricultural products. 

The foregoing shows what our farmers may expect in the way of a market 
under the new free trade scheme that is to revolutionize the commerce of the world 
and make millionaires of us all. 

Furthermore, there is no certainty that the countries described will make what 
the President may consider proper arrangements. Some of them may and some 
may not. Then we shall have additional burdens heaped upon us for the benefit of 
whoever takes advantage of free trade with the countries making proper regulations, 
as Spreckles took advantage of the treaty with the Sandwich Islands, to collect 
from the American people the amount of the sugar duties on all the sugar imported 
from them. That ic to say, some of these countries may send their products here 
free of duty, while the products of others will be subjected to the rates established 
by this " reciprocity" provision. 



204 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

So long as the articles that come in free, together with the home production^ 
fail to supply the domestic demand, the tariff will regulate the price of the wholi 
volume of consumption ; so much of this volume as pays duty will add to che receipts, 
of the Treasury and so much of it as is produced at home together with that which, 
comes in free will add to its price the full amount of the duty that it would have 
had to pay, had it all been imported subject to duty, and thus augment the private 
incomes of the home producers and the importers of the portion that is admitted 
free, for these persons will control the supply and sell their merchandise at the 
same price that the people will have to pay for that portion which pays the duties. 

But this is by no means the worst feature of the scheme ; for the home pro- 
ducers of sugar will, under these circumstances receive, in addition to an amount 
equivalent to the duties which a like quantity of imported dutiable sugar has to 
pay into the Tr^sury, the full amount of 2 cents per pound on their entire pro- 
duct that polarizes 90 degrees, and three-quarter cents per pound on all polarizing- 
between 80 and 90 degrees. 

Thus it is left primarily with foreign nations and ultimately with the President 
by ukase to levy taxes on our people and compel them to pay enormous amounts, 
of money as bounties and equivalents to duties to domestic producers and by way 
of argumented prices to whoever gets a "corner" on the jupply of the articles 
embraced in this mis-called reciprocal provision is concerned. Of course if none 
of these countries satisfy the President with their regulations, we shall pay the 
duty on importations of their products, and the equivalent and the domestic bounty 
on the home product of sugar. And, omitting the bounty, exactly the same state 
Df affairs will result from like arrangements as to the articles other than sugar. 

This is not a mere matter of theory or abstract reasoning : it is common sense 
that is abundantly confirmed by our experience and the experience of the workL 
The provision is wholly retaliatory in its nature, as in the event of the failure of 
these countries to admit our products upon terms satisfactory to the President,, 
their products now enter, or to hereafter enter, the United States free of duty, are 
to be taxed. This retaliation, injurious to a degree to those countries, will be 
most injurious to our own, by increasing the cost of the articles to our people. 

Senator Gray's Reciprocal Reciprocity. 

Senator Gray, of Delaware, tested the sincerity of these gentlemen who are 
so loud in their protestations of a desire for wider markets when he offered his 
amendment for real reciprocity with all the countries North and South of the 
United States. It is understood that Mr. Blaine wrote this provision substantially 
as it appears in the Record. It avoids all constitutional objections by directing the 
President to proclaim free entry to our ports upon the ascertainment of a partic- 
ular fact. It also opens our doors for everything whenever the other countries 
open theirs to our products. It is reciprocity that means something, and here It is r 

Sec. — . And the President of the United States is hereby directed, without turther leg- 
islation, to declare the ports o£ the United States free and open to all the products of any- 
country of the American hemisphere upon which no export duties are imposed, when- 
ever and so lonj? as the Government of such country shall admit to the ports of such 
country free of all national, provincial (State), municipal, and other taxes, flour, com 
meal, and other breadstuffs, preserved meats, fish, vegetables and fruits, cotton-seed oil,, 
rice, and other provisions, including all articles of food, lumber, furniture, and all other 
articles of wood, agricultural implements and machinery, mining and;raechanical machi- 
nery, vessels or boats of iron, !?teel, or wood, structural steel and iron, steel rails, loco- 
motives, railway cars and supplies, street cars, refined petroleum, or such other products 
of the United States as may be agreed upon. 



TARIFF TAXATION^ 



205 



The vote on this amendment was as follows: 



Barbour, 

Bate, 

Berry, 

Blodgett, 

Butler, 

Carlisle, 

Cockrel], 



Aldrich, 

Allen, 

Allison, 

Casey, 

Chandler, 

Cullom, 

Dawes, 

Dixon, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 





YE AS- 26. 


Coke, 


Harris, 


Colquitt, 


Kenna, 


Daniel, 


Morgan, 


Faulkner, 


Pasco, 


Gibson, 


Pugh, 


Gorman, 


Ransom, 


Gray, 


Reagan, 




NAYS-38. 


Evarts, 


Moody, 


Frye, 


Paddock, 


Hale, 


Pierce, 


Hawley, 


Piatt, 


Higgins, 


Plumb, 


Hiscock, 


Power, 


Hoar, 


Quay, 


Ingalls, 


Sanders, 


McMillan, 


Sawyer, 


Mitchell, 


Sherman, 



Vance, 
Vest, 
Voorhees, 
Walthall, 
Wilson of Md. 



Spooner, 

Squire, 

Stewart, 

Stockbridge, 

Teller, 

Washburn, 

Wilson of Iowa, 

Wolcott. 



Every affirmative vote was cast by a Democrat and every negative vote by a 
Republican. There was no Democrat or Republican split on that proposition. It 
came too near meaning something to receive Republican support. Anybody can 
understand it, and it imposes no duties on articles that would otherwise be free ; 
but there are so many questions to arise under the thing that was adopted, that it 
will not be undertaken to enumerate them here. The retaliatory taxes it imposes 
are apparent in its face. 



Splitting the Democratic Party. 

It was currently reported and published in the press shortly after the election 
of 1888, that Mr. Blaine remarked that the Republicans could not afford to buy 
another election, and that inasmuch as the Democratic party had espoused the 
right side of the tariff question, something must be done to split the party and 
lead away some of its adherents. He then proceeded diligently to promalgate this 
free trade retaliatory, reciprocity nonsense. 

Its propinquity to free trade is not denied by any intelligent and candid man. 
It is a distinct declaration of the principle and policy of Cobden and Peel, but it is 
so limited and circumscribed that it precludes all possible benefits that would 
inure from a more liberal commercial policy to the very class of our citizens that 
stands most in need of those benefits. There is much truth in the assertion that 
it is such free trade as is not inconsistent with protection, as we see protection in 
operation in this country. The hat will, as at present, go all the way around and 
the farmer will continue to make the largest contribution. 

Here is the split that the wedge has made — quoted from the Louisville Cour- 
ier Journal: 

Orator Puff, who has two tones to his voice, is at present in editorial charge of the 
New York Tribune^ as witness the following comparison of the opinion of the Tribune 
on reciprocity, two months apart : 



[Juno 34.] 

" Mr. Blaine is too accurate an observer of 
political events to suppose that the precise 
policy upon which President Cleveland was 
defeated would now be accepted by the 
people for the uncertain contpensation of 
larger exports to countries where all the 
channels of trade are in European hands, 
and where monetary and political disturb- 
ances retard progress." 



[September 1.] 

" The Tribune has already pointed out that 
Secretary Blaine's idea is not antagonistic to 
the protective policy of the nation, and that 
while mendacious opponents have persisted 
in rspresenting the serf of i-eciprocity pro- 
posed as an abandonment of protec^,ive 
principles. Republicans have not been de- 
ceived." 



206 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Each reader is to take his choice. That represents the position of the Repub- 
lican party to-day. 

Republican Objection to the l^ugar Duties. 

The Republioan objection to the sugar duties is that the tax which they 
impose upon the people nearly all goes into the Treasury, instead of into the 
pockets of private persons. By repealing these duties opportunity is offered to 
add to those taxes that do increase private fortunes. 

The Ways and Means Committee's report says : 

In 1888 the consumption of sugar in the Unitefl States was 1,469,997 tons, or 53.1 lbs. per 
Inhabitant. Of this only 189,814 tons (375,104,197 lbs.) were produced in the United States, 
and 1,280,183 tons, or seven-eighths of our consumption, were imported. We have not at 
hand the statistics of sugar consumption and production for 1889, but the relative pro- 
portion of domestic to foreign production was substantially the same. So large a pro- 
portion of our sugar is imported that the home production of sugar does not materially 
affect the price, and the duty is therefore a tax, which is added to the price not only of 
the imported but of the domestic product. 

In 1889 the duties collected on imported sugar and molasses amounted to $55,975,610. 
Add to this the increase of price of domestic sugar arising from the duty, and it is clear 
that the duty on sugar and molasses made the cost of the sugar and molasses consumed 
by the people of this country at least $64,000,000, or about one dollar for each man, woman 
and child in the United States, more than it would have been if no such duties had been 
levied and the domestic product had remained the same. 

The Democratic minority report says : 

We protest against the gross favoritism and injustice of such a policy, and we deny 
the moral or constitutional right of the Government to tax the people who grow corn, 
wheat, cotton, rye, oats, and other agricultural products for the purpose of raising monen 
to be given to those who produce sugar or any other article. The bounty provisions con- 
tained in this bill are confessions that the whole system which it seeks to strengthen and 
extend is a system of discriminations between the various productive industries of the 
country— a system which imposes charges upon some for the support of others, and dis- 
regards every principle of justice and equality in distributing the burdens of taxation. 

The duties imposed upon imported sugar, even at the present rates, are mainly for 
revenue, and about nine-tenths of the charge upon the people on account of these duties 
goes into the public treasury for the support of the Government, and only about one- 
tenth can be added to the prices of the domestic product. The tax, therefore, is far more 
just and equitable than the taxes on cotton and woolen goods, linen goods and many 
other articles now subject to high rates of duty, and which this bill proposes to make still 
higher, because in these cases the conditions are reversed, and the Government receives 
a small proportion only of the total amount the people are compelled to pay. While we 
believe the duties on sugar are too high, and that a reduction ought to be made, we can 
not see the justice or propriety of making this revenue article entirely free and paying 
bounties upon its production in order to afford an excuse for the imposition of additional 
taxes to the amount of about $65,000,000 on the necessaries of life embraced in the other 
schedules. 

Mr. McKenna, Republican, made an individual report on the sugar scheme 
Among other things he said : 

" The bill in its sugar schedule makes an arbitrary and invidious distinction 
between the sugar industry and other industries, a distinction inconsistent with 
the principle upon which the bill is framed and upon which it can only be justified. 

" A tariff may be a tax. A bounty is certainly one, fixed and unavoidable, and 
increases with the production it encourages. 
* * * ** ** ** * # 

" If a bounty is a tax of less burden than is a tariff, why are sugar consumers 
selected for favor ? 

" Is sugar the only article used in this country that is higher in price than in 
the markets of the world ? Make this the test. Contemplate the citizen as a con- 
sumer only (and at a special time), and there is an end of a protective tariff. The 
Republican House of Representatives should not set this example. Who can say 
where the contagion will stop ? 



TARIFF TAXATION. 207 

" One of the accusations against the present law is, one of the accusations 
against the proposed bill will be, that it retains the duties levied foi* war expendi- 
tures. Why ? If sugar is to be placed on the free list, it will be puzzling to 
answer the why." 

It is not merely puzzling, it is impossible. 

Ag^ricultural Scliedule. 

The farmers are beginning to see in their mortgages and low prices some of 
the effects of tariff spoliation, so the framers of the McKinley bill make great pre- 
tense of sharing the booty with them. The following gives a clear view of this 
proposition. It is from the speech of Senator Yance : 

" Mr. President, for twenty-five years or more the effect of the legislation which 
has been enacted here has been adverse to the agricultural classes of our country. 
I propose briefly to show the real effect of that legislation which is called protective. 

" Now, we will suppose that there are ten men in a given community engaged in 
ten different occupations ; and after awhile one of them — we will say he is a shoe- 
maker — calls his nine other associates and neighbors around him and says to them : 
* There is a man across the river who is bringing over shoes and underselling me, 
and if something is not done forme I shall be ruined and driven out of the business. 
Now, I propose that you all submit to a tax of 25 cents a pair on every pair of 
shoes sold here in order to prevent that man across the river from bringing in his 
shoes and underselling me.' 

*' Well, it is agreed to. Then the weaver says, ' Well, that same man's neigh- 
bors across the river are bringing in cloth here and underselling me, and as we 
have given the shoemaker the benefit of 25 cents a pair upon his shoes, it is nothing 
but just that you should give me 10 cents a yard upon my cloth for the same pur- 
pose.' And that is agreed tc. And so protection in the shape levying duties 
against the goods of the men across the river is continued until the whole ten are 
embraced. 

" Bach one has a tax levied for his benefit upon the goods of his competitor 
across the river, which enables him to keep up the price of his own. Now, it is 
perfectly obvious that if that tax is equally levied, if that protection goes aU 
around, it is not worth anything to any of them ; for the reason that if A has a tax 
levied for him which puts $1 into his pocket, and in turn has a tax levied upon 
him which takes a dollar out of his pocket and gives it to B, and so on around, it 
is perfectly evident that every one will have received a dollar in taxation and paid 
out a dollar in taxation, and that they will come out at the same hole by which 
they went in. Each man will have received a dollar in taxes and each man will 
have paid out a dollar in taxes. There is no money in that. 

*' But, Mr. President, you may know perhaps from observation or from reading, 
that if two men play cards and one wins, the other is bound to lose. There is no 
escape from that ; and in order that this scheme of taxation may make anybody 
wealthy who is concerned in it there must be somebody to lose as well as somebody 
to win. There must be some one of the ten upon whom the tax is levied who can 
not recoup by taxation upon anybody else ; because, as I have said, when the tax 
is levied upon a member of the community, if he is able to recoup by taxes upon 
the rest of the community then he is made whole. And so in the State there must 
be a class, there must be one or more cliasses of the people upon whom the taxes to 



208 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

protect the others fall, who will not themselves be able to levy the tax in turn upon 
somebody else. 
"-^ " Now, sir, here are the three great classes of producers of our country — the 
agriculturists, the miners, and the manufacturers — and they have made this com- 
pact, or at least it has been made for them, that the taxes are to be levied upon 
the articles made by the manufacturer for their 'encouragement' and 'protec- 
tion * against competition ; and taxes have been levied upon articles that compete 
with the miners who dig ores of iron and coal and everything of that kind from 
the soil. To give it the appearance of equality and justice taxes, are also levied 

(upon the wheat and the corn and the oats and the cotton, etc., grown by the far- 
mer. That on paper looks fair, but it so happens that it is a reality for the manu- 
facturer and the miner, and it is a delusion and a snare for the farmer. "* 

" The manufacturer's articles and productions are protected because he has com- 
petition that comes from across the water, from foreign countries : consequently he 
has grown rich, and the manufacturers are now the wealthiest portion of the Ameri- 
can people. The miners have flourished in the same proportion as an adjunct of the 
manufacturers. «^The miners and manufacturers together have grown rich and 
accumulated enOrmous wealth by this protective arrangement. But how has it 
ff I been with the farmer ? He has found that there is nothing to compete with him. 
A duty of 25 cents a bushel is laid upon his wheat, of 10 cents upon his corn, of 5 
cents a pound or 2 cents a pound — I do not remember what it is and it is immate- 
rial, and I am very glad I do not remember it — upon his bacon, his pork, and his 
beef, and all such things ; but it turns out in fact and in truth that there is no 
j) competition with him coming from abroad. There is nothing to protect him 
against. ^ 

*' There is a little barley shipped over from the Canadian border, and even that 
would not come but for the fact that the peculiar kind of barley grown in Canada 
is necessary to the production of beer in this country. There is also a little seed 
wheat imported across the border ; a stray steer now and then comes across the 
Mexican border into Texas and the western country, and now and then there Is 
an animal imported for breeding purposes, and again there are a few bushels of 
potatoes from Nova Scotia that come in ; but the great bulk of the farmer's pro- 
ductions are without competition from abroad. 
</ I' I say, therefore, that when this beautiful theory of protection came into 
practice, while it was a reality, and a substantial reality, for the manufacturer,^ 
and the miner, the agricultural man found it to be a delusion and a cheat.-ij. 
It was simply the bargain which the chicken cock ma de with the horses in th^/^ 
stable. 'Let us be very careful, gentlemen,' says the chicken cock, 'not to tread 
on each other's toes.' [Laughter.] The farmer of America, owing to the good- 
ness of God — I venture to make that eipression, notwithstanding the fact that we 
are told it is the goodness of the tariff — owing to the goodness of God, I will per- 
sist in sayiilg, in giving us the most fertile and magnificent farming land in this 
world, and owing to the industry and the genius of the farmer who manipulates 
that soil, we are ahead of all countries in the production of food. 

" The corn and the wheat and the oats and the rye and the barley and the live- 
stock, meat and provisions of all kinds in America, take the first rank in quantity 
and quality of all similar supplies produced upon earth. And therefore the manu- 
facturer who wants 50 per cent, on his iron goods, 75 per cent, upon his woolen 
goods, and for the manufacturer of crockeryware, who wants 60 per cent, for his 
products, to come in and say to the farmer: ' Now, sir, if you will give me this 



TARIFF TAXATION. 209 

duty upon my production I will positively give you 25 cents a bushel of duty on 
your wheat,' is about as much of a bargain and as well sustained by adequate con- 
sideration as the^ bargain which one boy proposed to make with another ; said he, 
* Jim, if you will give me your big red apple I will show you my sore toe.' 
[Laughter.]" 

" The manufacturer of woolen goods who wants 75 per cent, upon his woolens 
has absolutely made that bargain with the farmers : * If you give me 75 per cent, 
protection upon my woolen goods, against the English and Grerman and French man- 
facturers, I will give you 25 cents a bushel on your wheat and 10 cents a bushel on 
your corn to protect you against England, that does not grow a bushel of corn, and 
against England, who does not grow more than one-fifth of the wheat that her 
people eat, and has to import nearly all her supplies, in your behalf, who ex- 
port more wheat and corn and provisions than any other two nations in the world 
put together.' 

*' That is the character of the bargain. Well, the farmer makes it, or at least 
he has submitted to it, and when reminded of the inequalities of this kind of a con- 
tract, of the workings of this kind of a system, the manufacturers of woolen and 
iron goods and of crockeryware, etc., always quiet the farmer by telling him, *Hold 
still : we will by this operation keep our money at home and we will keep the pro- 
ductions of foreigners out ; we will make our own people rich ; we will increase 
the value of your land ; we will buy all of your products at home, and in the long 
run you will see that indirectly you will reap as much benefit as we do directly.' 
And they are always telling him what he is going to get under this protective sys- 
tem in ' the long run ;' and meanwhile, in the short run, the manufacturer is get- 
ting rich, is eating the red apple and laughing in his sleeve. One gets cash and 
the other gets promises and gazes at the sore toe ; the cash is the short run, and the 
promises are the long run ; and these promises are somewhat like government 
bonds, payable at the option of the promissor. They are to be performed when- 
ever the manufacturer gets tired of reaping the benefits of the bargain on his part 
and will agree to let the farmer have his innings." 

Mr. MonaAN. " He never gets tired." 

Mr. Vance. "Alas, no ; so far he has proved remarkably longwinded and has 
not shown the slightest evidence of being tired. This bill rather indicates that he 
is panting for a greater speed in the race instead of being tired. 

The farmer has these disadvantages under this system : The prices of all his 
)ducts are fixed by the markets abroad, and why ? Because he makes more than 
"will supply the home market and the surplus which goes abroad fixes the price of 
that which is sold in the home market, and the very fact that there is a surplus to 
sell abroad is evidence that the home market is abundantly supplied, and that 
abundant supply, according to the well-known principles of political economyj 
operates to keep prices down. /^ > 

" He can not increase those prices by an artificial scarcity on account of the 
impossibility of forming a combination like those to which the manufacturers 
resort. His interest is so widespread, the persons engaged in agriculture are so 
broadly diffused over the whole land, that it is impossible for them to act in 
concert and to create an artificial scarcity. They are obliged, therefore, to send 
their articles abroad, and there they are sold in competition with the cheapest 
labor of this world. Our farmers' wheat is sold in competition with Indian wheat 
ivhich is grown with labor at 6 cents a day, and the Southern planter's cotton is 
sold in competition with the cotton of India, which is made with the same labor, 

27 



210 DEMOCRATIC CAI^IPAIGN BOOK. 

in competition with the ryots of India and with the fellahs ot the Nile, whose pay- 
is still less than that of the ryot of India, and in competition with the half-breed 
labor of South America and the islands of the sea, and everywhere that cotton is 
produced. So then, the men, women and children who work in the cotton-fields 
and in the gin-houses of the South are compelled to labor in competition with the 
cheapest and most degraded labor of our race anywhere to be found. 

*' The farmer is therefore compelled by this plan to go abroad to sell his surplus ; 
having just sold his home product at prices fixed by competition with the lowest 
labor in the world, he goes abroad and sells in the same free-trade market. If he 
were permitted to buy in the same market at prices cheapened in like manner he 
would be compensated to some extent for these disadvantages, but he is not per- 
mitted to buy there. When he gets to Liverpool and sells his wheat or his cotton 
at these reduced prices, if he could buy the hardware that he requires for the use of 
his farm at English prices, or if he could buy woolen goods which he requires for 
the use of his family, at English or German prices, or crockery- ware for the use of 
his family at the prices there in a market cheapened by the free-trade labor of the 
world in the same way, he would to a great degree be compensated for these dis- 
advantages, but he cannot do it. 

'"If he buys in Liverpool with the proceeds of his cargo of wheat a suply of iron 
goods and woolen goods and crockery- ware for his own use or the use of his neigh- 
t)ors, when he arrives at the port of New York the Government of his country takes 
from him one-half of all the iron goods he got ; it takes over one-half of all the 
crockery-ware he got, and it takes three-quarters of every piece of woolen goods he 
has got, under this bill, as a tax, as a punishment for daring to go abroad and sell 
his surplus products. It was his duty to have permitted them to rot rather than 
buy cheap goods from foreigners. 

" He is treated as a criminal by the laws of his country and subjected to fines 
and penalties in the way of duties. If he comes back with a dollar's worth of 
crockery-ware for the use of his family, for which he had sold a bushel of wheat, 
the Government takes over 50 cents of it ; if he comes back with a dollar's worth of 
iron supplies for the use of his farm the Government takes one-half ; if he comes 
back with 4 yards of cloth the Government takes 3 yards of it and leaves him 1. 

'* Mr. President, is it any wonder that that thing has produced its natural result ? 
Whilst the farmer is paying the tax to his neighbor to sustain him in business, 
from whom is he to recoup his losses ? Where is there a man below and subject 
to him upon whom he may cast the burden of his taxation ? He is nowhere. There 
is nobody. He pays that out of his earnings, a dead loss forever. 

" Is it any wonder, I ask, if in this unequal struggle which has been going on in 
this way ever since the war, for more than twenty-five years, that the agricultural 
classes have been falling behind ? They have been heaping up mortgages and in- 
debtedness ; they have been in many places forced to burn their corn for fuel for 
the want of a market for it. They live harder, they make less advancement in the 
arts of luxury and comfort, they endure more privations, they work harder, they 
give less education to their children, they lave less opportunity for acquiring in- 
formation and cultivation for themselves than any other class of the community; 
whilst we see the other classes, the mining and the manufacturing classes, accord- 
ing to the statistics of the census tables, heaping together all the wealth and con- 
centrating in themselves all of the prosperity of the country." 

Those are facts which cannot be denied. 



TARIFF TAXATION. ' 211 

The AYays and Means report says : 

A critical examination of the subject will show that agriculture is suffering chiefly 
from a most damaging foreign competition in our home market. The increse in impor- 
tations of agricultural products since 18b0 has been enormous, mounting from $40,000,000 
to more than $356,000,000 in 18S9. This is an increase of nearly 900 per cent., while the 
population increased for the s~ame period less than 300 per cent. During the past ten j^ears 
this growth in importations has been most rapid, and has been marked by a significant 
and corresponding decline In prices of the home-grown product. 

R. P. Porter, Superintendent of Census, says that our agricultural imports are : 

Sugar $93,000,000 

Animals and products (except wool) 41,000,000 

Fibers, animal and vegetable 60,000,000 

Fruits 19.000,000 

Barley and Cereals 9.000,000 

Tobacco leaf 11,000,000 

Total $333,000,000 

It will be observed that he includes sugar, which is to go on the free list. He 
says that the total amount was $250,000,000, but he specifies none of the "articles 
that make up the $17,000,000. 

J. R. Dodge, statistician of the Agricultural Department, says : 

The agricultural imports amounted for 1889 to over $348,000,000 at ports of shipment, 
and fully $400,000,000 with freight and commission added. These imports are largely food 
and fibers. The heavier items for 18»8-'89 are as follows : 

Sugar and molasses $ 93,297,868 

Animals and their products (except wool) 40,419,503 

Fibers, animal and vegetable. '. 59,453,936 

Fruits and nuts 18,746,417 

Barley and other cereals 8,971,723 

Tobacco leaf 10,868^336 

Wines 7,706,772 

Total $239,464,443 

Hon. Jeremiah Rusk, the eminent farmer and practical protectionist at the 
head of the Agricultural Department, says : 

Of all the wonderful phases of development of which the United States furnishes such 
striking examples, none is perhaps mere remarkable than the wonderful increase, totally 
disproportionate to our increase of population, in our imports of products which are dis- 
tinctly agricultural. In 1850 the imports of such products amounted to $40,000,000; for the 
fiscal year ending in 1889, they amounted to the enormous sum of $356,000,000, an increase 
of nearly 900 per cent., while the increase in population during the corresponding period 
was considerably less than 300 per cent. To any reasonable man the conclusion must be 
obvious, namely, that in the line of products, with the exception of cotton, upon which 
our farmers chiefly depend, there has grown up a well-nigh ruinous competition, in which 
the labor of the peasant of Europe, of the miserable fellah of Egypt, and of the unfortu^ 
nate, half-starved Indian ryot, working for pauper wages, neglecting all the amenities of 
life in order that women and children as well as men may work in the fields, is pitted 
against that of the American farmer. 

It will be seen that Secretary Rusk's concoction was taken by the committee. 
The Republican campaign book, just issued, puts the imports for 1889 at $65,132,519. 
It is not worth while trying to reconcile the statements made by these protectionists 
for the purpose of misleading the farmers. But if it is worth to discuss our agri- 
cultural imports at all, it is worth while to tell the truth about them. 

Senator Vest said in his speech : 

" I am sorry to be compelled to spoil this magniloquent production, but the pea- 
sants of Europe, the fellahs of Egypt, and the ryots of India do not compete in 
this market with any of our agriculturarl staples. The report of the Treasury De- 
partment for 1889 shows that not a bushel of corn, wheat, rye, oats, or a pound of 
flour was brought here from India, Egypt, or any pauper-labor country. 

" Some limburger and other foreign cheese is brought from Europe, but it is so 



212 



EEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



entirely different from our American cheese as to forbid all competition betweem 
the domestic and foreign article. 

" The Treasury reports show no direct trade of any sort with Egypt, while from 
India sugar is imported to the value of $54,000, with flaxseed, bagging, burlaps,, 
jute, potash, tin, fine wood, spices, India rubber, essential oils, catechu, gambia^ 
gums, cotton, and indigo. These in all foot up $19,000,000, of which $12,000,00^ 
has been placed, by the Republican party, of the free-list. The principal imports 
from India amount to $4,000,000 for jute goods, $3,635,000 for tin, $1,000,000 tor 
spices, and $2,432,000 for indigo. 

" If there is any competition between these articles and the products of the 
American farmer, it would be well for the Secretary of Agriculture to indicate- 
where it is." 

He then shows that the imported barley, cheese, fibres and tobacco, because of 
their peculiar kinds, do noc compete with our products, but deducting nothing be- 
cause of this non-competition, he says : 

" It is found, then, that the list of imported agricultural products when analyzed 

and compared with official reports aggregate as follows, leaving out sugar, fruits,, 

and foreign wine, which no more compete with the crops of American farmers- 

than zebras, hippopotami, and tigers with American animals : 

Animals and products (except wool) ; $6,996,978< 

Fibers, animal and vegetable 18,467,422 

Barley and other cereals 7,858,962 

Tobacco-leaf 8,603,168- 

Total $41,926,530. 

If this amount be doubled, to cover all plausible estimates, it shows $83,852,- 
000, instead of $233,000,000 and $239,000,000, as stated by these Government ofllcials.. 

Allowing these servants of the people, who leave their official duties to work 
for a high tariff, the full amount of these imports as shown by the oflScial report,, 
they have swollen, in their partisan zeal and rancor, $83,000,000 to $233,000,000^ 
and $239,000,000." 

"With the foregoing statement and remembering that these imports are largely 
for seeds and for breeding purposes to improve our stock, consider the farmers'" 
share in the scheme of mutual spoliation. 

Table showing imports and exports of articles in the agricultural scliedule^ with duties^ 
under present law and the McKinley bill. 



Articles. 



Barley bushels. 

Corn »t 

Cornmeal barrels. 

Oats bushels. 

Oatmeal pounds. 

Kye bushels. 

Rye flour barrels. 

Wheat bushels. 

Wheat flour. . .barrels. 

Eggs dozen 

Cheese pounds. 

Butter »' 

Milk... value. 

Hay tons. 

Hops pounds. 

Beans and peas, bush. 

Potatoes tt 

Onions " 

Cotton pounds. 



Impts. Exports. 



11,368,414 
2,401 



22,310 

1,965,433 

16 



130,649 
1,156 

15,918,809 
8,207,026 
178,851 
$85,485 
ia5,395 
4,176,158 
765,483 
883,380 



120,000 



1,440,321 

69,592,929 

312,186 

624,226 

10,210,413 

287,252 

3,669 

46,414,129 

9,374,803 

548,750 

84,999,828 

15,504,978 

$260,590 

21,928 

12,589,2()2 

294,456 

471,9.55 

75,074 

2,384,816,669 



Present duty. 



10 cents per bushel 

tr It If 

II II II , 

II II II 

10 per cent 

10 cents per bushel 

}i cent per pound 

20 cents per bushel 

20 per cent, ad valorem 

Free 

4 cents per pound 

»i II II 

20 per cent, ad valorem 

$2 per ton 

8 cents per pound 

10 per cent, ad valorem 

15 cents per bushel 

10 per cent, ad valorem 



Proposed duty. 



25«/s per bushel of 48 lbs. 

15<?i per bushel of 56 lbs. 

20<^ per bushel of 48 lbs.,. 

15^ per bushel 

1?> per pound. 

\Q<t per busliel. 

>^(? per pound. 

25V* per bushel.. 

25 per cent, ad valorem! 

5<?5 per dozen. 

6<!! per pound. 

«i ti 

5^ per gallon. 
$4 per ton. 
15(i5 i)er pound. 
40<?; per bushel of 60 lbs„ 
25^ per bushel of 60 lbs.. 
40^ per bushel. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



213i 



There are also on the dutiable list vegetables, not otherwise provided for, sub- 
jected to a duty of 10 per cent., raised by the bill to 25 per cent. Imports, $437,- 
377 ; revenue, |43,737 ; proposed revenue, $84,344 ; and of these, too, we exported 
vastly more than we imported. 

/This shows very clearly where the farmer's competition is. It is across the \ 
sea, m the markets to which he ships his surplus, and thre, after paying all freights 
and other charges, he meets the products of the lowest paid labor in the world and 
sells at the prices ^xedjbv the world's demand and supply. But these markets- 
also fix the pric'es of what nC'sells at home! for the home consumers never concern 
themselves about the supply. They merely say to the farmer : " Go across the sea 
and sell all you can. "When you shall have supplied those markets, we will take 
what you have left at such prices as we see fit to give." The farmer has filled 
those markets ; he must sell his crop, and consequently he takes whatever he can 
get for it. 

A It is^ aiijijisult_tp say Jo t^fi.Iarm^jander^th(^se circumstances that but for the 1/ 
tariS on his products anybody from anywhere, the fellahs, the ryots, or anybody 
else, can drive him out of his own market. He sends his products three to five . 
thousand miles, paying the expenses of the trip, to meet these very persons and. // 
sells his crops in those foreign markets along with what they sell and at their prices j 
How, then, can they afford to pay the expenses of coming here to sell in his market, 
meeting him where he has reached the buyers without paying a cent except to 
move his crops from his farm to the domestic markets ? Of course he would have 
also the advantage arising from inland freight from the seaboard to the markets 
where the crops are disposed of. 

This is not all, protection can not increase our present home market by in- 
creasing the number of factories ; for even now our manufacturing capacity is so 
great that in eight months at most we can manufacture what it will take us twelve? 
months to consume, and any increase will result only in universal distress. 
While this is all true, foreign nations are doing all they can to shut the Amer- 
ican farmer out of their markets in retaliation for our treatment of their producers. 
As Mr. Blaine said in one of his letters on the McKinley bill, " the foreign market 
for our breadstuffs grows narrower. Where the commercial war will end, no one 
can foresee, but that the farmer will be the victim if it continues, is too plain for 
dispute. 

Let us see what the result of our tariff has been as to prices of farm products. 
The following table shows how prices have fallen because our farmers have to sell 
in a free trade market and buy in a protected market. No enlargement upon our 
recent experience can possibly be necessary. 

Quantity and value of crop of 1889 at farm prices of 1881 and 1889. 



Products and unit of 
quantity. 


Quantity. 


o 

1 


o 

1 


r-l 

B 
® 

1 


1* 


Loss In value of 
crop of 1889 as 
compared with 

1881, 


Corn bushels.. 

Wheat tt 

Oats tt 

Rye It 

Barley it 

Buckwheat.... it 

Potatoes tt 

Hay tons 

Cotton pounds . 

Tohacco It 


2,112,892,000 
490,560,000 
751,515,000 
28,415,000 
63,884,000 
12,aj0,000 
202,365,000 
46,643,094 
3,540,000,000 
565.795,000 


$0,283 
.698 
.230 
.457 
.427 
.518 
.403 
7.880 
.830 
.071 


$0,636 
1.193 
.464 
.933 
.823 
.865 
.909 

11.820 
.100 
.096 


$ 597,918,829 
342,491,707 
171,781,008 

12,985,655 

27,278,468 
6,241,900 

81,553,095 
367,547,580 
293,000,000 

40,171,445 


$1,343,859,312 
585,938,080 
348,702,960 
236,511495 
52,576,532 
10,423,250 
183,949,785 
551,321,371 
354,000,000 
54,316,320 


$ 745,940,483 

243,446,373 

176,921,952 

13,525,540 

25,298,064 

4,181,350' 

102,396,6901 

183,773,791 

61,000,000' 

14,144,875. 


Total.... 


$1,940,969,687 


$3,511,598,805 


$1,570,629,118: 



214 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

In his speech Hon. R. Q. Mills said, speaking of this showing : 

It is a startling fact that while our cereals in 1889 exceed those of 1881 more tlian 
1,300.000,000 bushels, yet the crop is not worth as much as that of 1881 by more than $300,- 
000,000. 

I append here a table to which I invite the attention of the whole country. It shows 
the production of corn, wheat, oats, rye, barley, buckwheat, potatoes, hay, cotton and 
tobacco, and the farm prices of these products for 1881 and 1889. It will be seen that if our 
«rop of these products had the prices in 1889 that they had in 1881 it would have been worth 
$3,511,508,806 Instead of $1,940,969,687, which is its value with present farm prices. It shows 
a loss of $1,570,629,118. Why have we not the prices of 1881? Because we have cut off im- 
portation from our European customer, and they have cut off importation from us. Our 
surplus is increasing with our population, and we have no markets to consume it. "What 
ought we to do ? 

We should reduce the duties on imports, put all raw material on the free-list, increase 
"our importations four or five hundred millions or more if we could, and thus increase our 
exports to that extent. That would raise the prices of agricultural products and the 
.aggregate value of our annual crops $1,500,000,000 or $2,000,000,000 per year. That would 
<iistr]bute a large amount of wealth that would be expended in the employment of labor, 
and thus unbounded prosperity would be brought to the whole country. 

Instead of this the committee hav^e ]:>repared a bill increasing taxes, raising duties, 
restricting importations, shutting in our ^arm products, and decreasing prices. They are 
going in the opposite direction and struggling to intensify the distress of the country. 
When you pass your bill, as I have no doubt you will, and almost stop the exports of agri- 
cultural products, you will hear a storm that will be worse than a Nebraska cyclone 
blowing around your heads. [Laughter and applause on tho Democratic side.] 

. Democrats try to give tlie farmer real reciprocity. 

In the Senate Mr. Yance offered this amendment to the tariff bill : 

Whereas from an early period in our history duties upon foreign imports have been 
levied with the avowed purpose of promoting the Interest of domestic manufactures, and 
drawbacks or rebates have been given of the duties on raw material used in the manufac- 
ture of all articles exported for the same purpose ; and 

Whereas for the encouragement for the production of spirits and tobacco all internal 
taxes are refunded upon those articles which are exported abroad ; and 
/ Whereas bounties have long been granted to our fishermen by a drawback of duties 

I upon the salt used in their business, and subsidies are proposed to aid in the building and 
sailng of ships ; and 

Whereas agriculture, being the greatest and most important of all oiu- industries, has 
not been, and in the nature of things, can not be, aided in the same manner, the duties 
heretofore levied for that purpose having for the most part proven wholly unavailing ; and 

Whereas It is desirable to do impartial justice to all of our industries, and to give no 
one an advantage over the others, and inasmuch as there is no other way by which agri- 
culture can be compensated for its contributions to the support of manufactures ; There- 
fore, 

Sec. — . That in all cases where it can be shown by proof satisfactory to the Secretary 
of the Treasury that any goods, wares, or merchandise imported into this country have 
been purchased abroad by any citizen of the United States by exchange of farm products 
grown by him in the United States for such goods, or where such goods have been pur- 
chased with the proceeds or avails of such farm products in foreign countries, such goods, 
wares, or merchandise shall .be imported at the following rates of duty, to wit: Three- 
fourths of the present duty on all manufacturers of iron and steel ; 60 per cent, of the 
present duty on all woolen and cotton goods, or articles of which wool or cotton may be 
the component material of chief value ; 60 per cent.of the present duty on earthenware, 
ciflna and glassware ; 30 per cent, of the present rate of fduty on all material used for 
fertilizers, or in the manufacture thereof, and 25 per cent, of the present duty on lumber, 
or jute bagging and farmers' binding twine. 

Sec. — . That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to adopt such rules 
and regulations as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act. 

In the course of his speech in advocacy of this amendment, Senator Vance 
said : 

" Out of $845,293,828 worth of exports which went abroad from our country in 
1890, $629,785,917 worth were products of agriculture alone, leaving for mining, 
forest, manufactures, fisheries, and all the other industries only $215,507,000. Now, 
as agriculture pays 52 per cent, duty on $488,644,000 of dutiable merchandise, and 
as it pays its full share and more of the enhanced protected prices on at least five 
times that amount of the domestic articles, all for the benefit of manufactures, 
why not allow these farmers this advantage from the sale of their own products? 
I challenge the production of a single principle of justice that forbids it sug- 
gestion of bad policy that would prevent it. 



• 



TARIFF TAXATION. 215 

' ' We gave the manufacturers, I have said, a market of 64,000,000 people by high 
protective duties, and we have aided them in every conceivable and possible way 
to conquer the foreign market. Now, why not permit the farmer with his own 
products to win all of the foreign markets that he can by his own unaided compe- 
tition, simply by withholding a part only which is extended to manufactures ? 
This provision for his benefit requires nothing to be taken from the Treasury. On 
the contrary, it will put more money in the Treasury than the present tariff bill. 
It only requires that you should withhold that much for him. 

" It is useless to deceive him or try to deceive him any longer with protective 
duties on eggs and split beans and cabbage heads and dried apples. It is useless 
to bait him any longer with free fiddle strings, skeletons, acorns, salted guts, 
nutmegs, and Zante currants. Tempting as this bait is, the farmer prefers to 
have cheap ties for his cotton and twine for the sheaves of plenty which he reaps 
from the earth, cheap trace-chains to pull his plow and fence-wire to inclose his 
fields, cheap blankets, cheap bagging for his cotton, cheap tinware for his house- 
hold, and cheap window-glass for his house. 

" Look over that free-list, Mr. President, and no impartial mind can see a single 
solitary article which is largely imported of any particular benefit to the farmer in 
his business. He will see every one of them either for the benefit of the rich or 
for the benefit of the manufacturer. That is not right, sir ; it is not just, sir ; it is 
almost, I was going to say, impiety itself to thus oppress men who, as the instru- 
ments of the Almighty, answer for us their praj^er He taught us to utter : ' Give us 
this day our daily bread.' " [Applause in the galleries.] 

It is needless to say that the tariff advocates rejected this proposition. 
At different times during the consideration of the customs administrative bill 
and the tariff bill the Hon. R. P. Bland, of Missouri, offered these admentments : 

1. That in all cases where it can be shown by proof satisfactory to the Secretary of the 
Treasury that any goods, wares, or merchandise imported into this country have been 
purchased abroad by exchange of farm products for such goods, or where such goods 
have been purchased with the proceeds or avails of farm products in foreign countries, 
such goods, wares, or merchandise shall be imported free of duty. 

2. That it shall be lawful for the farmers of each State and Territory of the United States 
to organize or establish for themselves such agencies as they may deem expedient for the 
purpose of exporting, selling, and exchanging the products of farms of the United States 
in foreign markets, and to import free of duty into this counti-y all articles of commerce 
procured in such foreign markets by the sale or exchange of the farm products of this 
country : Provided, That all subjects of trade or commerce so imported free of duty shall 
be for the use and benefit of the farmers so importing the same and for their own con- 
sumption, and shall not be sold in the markets of this country in competition with like 
articles on which a duty shall have been paid. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary 
of the Treasury to make all needful rules and regulations to properly carry into effect the 
foregoing provisions relating to the sale and exchange of the products of American f arm^i 
in foreign markets. 

3. That in all cases where the products of the farms of the United States shall be sent 
abroad to foreign markets and there exchanged for goods, ware, or merchandise, or 
where such goods, wares, or merchandise shall have been purchased with the avails or 
proceeds arising from the sales of farm products, then, and in all such cases, such goods, 
wares, and merchandise so purchased or exchanged for In foreign countries shall be ad- 
mitted free of duty. 

Sec. 3. That proof of such exports and imports herein provided for shall be made 
under such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out in good faith the pro- 
visions of this act ; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury from time to 
time to adopt and promulgate such rules. 

While Mr. Bland was discussing one of these amendments the following 
occurred : 

Mr. Kerr, Republican, of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, the first objection there is to 
the gentleman's proposition is that if Ms proposition were adopted it would abolish 
our tariff system altogetTier, and it would take away from us all the revenues that were 
received from that system. 



216 • DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Mk. Bland. The^i the gentleman admits that the farmers support the whole 
tariff system ? [Applause on the Democratic side.] I expected to bring that out 
in this discussion. 

Mr. Bland read the following, based on official treasury figures : 

Protected, manufacturing has given the nine States of the Northeast control of the 
banks, banking power, and money of the country. They have only about one-fourth the 
population of the country, but they own over three-flfths of the banking capital and de- 
posits. The per capita is $198 for them and only $40 for the other States and Territories. 
Massachusetts alone ($691,154:,000) has more than the eight States of Indiana, Michigan, 
Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Missom-i, and Colorada put together. 
New Hampshire, with a population of only 381,000, has as much ($79,281,762) as the two 
States of Indiana ($63,852,000) and North Carolina ($12,160,000), with an aggregate popula- 
tion of 4,000,000 ; and Rhode Island, with a population of only 343,000, has ($113,448,036) more 
than Georgia ($27,299,000), South Carolina ($12,000,000), Alabama ($15,600,000), Mississippi 
<$10,000,000), Louisiana ($29,000,000), and West Virginia ($8,&31,000), with an aggregate popu- 
lation of 8,000,000. 

It will be said in explanation of this unequal distribution of the money wealth of the 
country that, while the manufacturing States have a large share of their wealth in 
money, the farming States have theirs chiefly in farms, cities, towns, and railroads. This 
statement is true, but the force of it is broken by another very important fact, namely : 
That nearly all the railroads of the farming States, and one-fourth their farms, cities, and 
i;owns are mortgaged— and the mortgages are held chiefly in the manufactering States. 
Indeed, the manufacturing States own not only three-fifths of the money of the country, 
but a full fourth, and probably one-third, of the wealth in the other States and Territories 
l)esides. 

With the defeat of these amendments before the people, all talk of reciprocity 

in the interest of agriculture is too palpably insincere for controversy. Senator 

Yance's proposition was rejected after the Bland amendments. He did not try free 

entry, for that was settled. 

BRUTE ARISTOCRACY. 

The bill provides that animals purchased and Imported for breeding purposes can- 
not be brought in free unless of " pure blood of a recognized breed and duly registered 
in the book of record established for that breed." The present law allows all 
animals imported for breeding purposes to come in free. The effect of this change 
is to allow the wealthy breeders of fine stock to import without a tax the high bred 
registered stock to be used in the production of race and prize animals, while the 
ordinary farn^er desirous of improving his stock through the importation of a 
Spanish Jack, a well-bred stallion, a boar or a ram, that has not the good fortune 
to be entered in the " four hundred " roll of animals and that cannot trace its ances- 
tral line back to the time of William the Conquerer, will be met at tbe port of entry 
T3y a custom house officer, demanding the payment of the regular tax so generously 
levied for the " protection of the farmer." He may, however, still trade his wheat 
;and cotton for asafetida, balm of Gilead, bladders, cat guts, dandelion roots, dia- 
monds in the rough, divi-divi, insect eggs (such as grasshoppers, chinch bugs and 
locusts,) fish bait, fossils, pieces of broken glass, salted guts, hoofs and horns unmanu- 
Jactured, ipecac, joss sticks, old junk, moss, sea-weeds, nux vomica, orchids, pulu^ 
pumice, rags, skeletons, snails, spunk, natural teeth, tobacco stems, turtles and some 
other like articles. 

Binding- Twine. -r-The Mills' bill reduced the duty on all binding-twine made of 
hemp, jute, jute butts, sunn, sisal grass, ramie, China grass, or any other material, 
to 15 per cent. The House passed the McKinley bill with a provision for IJ cents 
per pound on all such twine. The Senate put all binding-twine made i^ whole or 
part of istles or Tampico fibre, manilla, sisal grass or sunn on the free list ; placed 
a duty of 2i cents per pound on all binding twine made of hemp, and of 40 per cent, 
on all made of jute, or other vegetable fibres, but jute itself is free for the benefit 
«of the manufacturer. 

The House refused to allow a separate vote on this amendment, but sent the 
whole bill to conference, where the binding-twine that it placed on the free list 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



217 



was subjected to a tax of seven-tenths of a cent per pound. Thus do the farmers 
always fare at the hands of the Republican party. 

TEAS— 34. 



Allison, 


Eustis, 


Morgan, 


Vance, 


Bate, 


Faulkner, 


Paddock, 


Vest, 


Berry 


Gorman. 


Pasco. 


Voorhees, 


Carlisle, 


Gray, 


Pierce, 


Walthall, 


Casey, 


Jones of Arkansas, Plumb, 


Washburn, 


Cocnrell, 


McMillan, 


Pugh, 


Wilson of Iowa, 


Coke, 


McPherson, 


Reagan, 


Wilson of Md. 


Colquitt, 


Mitchell, 


Squire, 




Davjs, 


Moody, 


Turpie. 

NATS— 24. 




Aldrich, 


Dawes, 


Higgins, 


Sanders, 


Allen, 


Dixon, 


Hiscock, 


Sawyer, 


Blair, 


Edmunds, 


Hoar, 


Sherman, 


Blodgett, 


Bvarts, 


Jones of Nevada, 


Stewart, 


Cameron, 


Frye, 


Piatt, 


Stockbridge, 


CuUom, 


Hawley, 


Quay. 


Teller. 



Democrats in italics. It will be seen that 12 Republicans and 22 Democrats 
voted for free twine, while only one Democrat voted against it. This was another 
open confession by the Senate that the tariff is a tax. 

The free twine amendment was offered by Senator Davis of Minnesota. It 
was clearly shown that the product is controlled by a trust. It takes from two to 
three pounds of twine to bind the product of an acre, and as the trust manipulates, 
prices to suit itself, the farmers pay whatever ig asked. Free tnvine would mean 
the saving of many thousands of dollars anriuallv. Senator Davis said in his. 
speech : 

" The raw material costs 8 cents, the manufacture 2^ cents, which make 10^- 
cents, and the cost to the harvester companies 2 cents, making 12^ cents, and the 
middleman charges the farmer a profit of 2 cents. 

Now, Mr. President, this item of 14^^ cents per pound for binding-twine carries, 
a profit of 40 per cent, of the $10,000,000 worth of binding-twine necessary . to- 
secure the crop of this country. For the year 1889 it represents over $4,000,000 of 
profit. I should like to know if there is any special reason why this pre-Adkmite^ 
infant of protection, which has existed in combination for so many years by reason, 
of its control upon the foreign markets and domestic output, is in any particular 
entitled to be nurtured at the breast of protection any more. 

Mr. Plumb. It might be willing to live on the bottle at least, and give some 
one else a chance at the breast. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Davis. In regard to the price of binding-twine throughout the North- 
west at the present time, I desire to read a letter from the Mast, Buford & Burwell 
Company, of St. Paul, Minn., large dealers in this article. 

St. Paul, Minn., June 2, 1890. 
Dear Sir :— Answering your inquiry as to prices on binder-twine the past Ave years,. 
we herewith hand you about the average price during each season at wholesale. The 
retail price, as a rule, would be from 2 to 3 cents higher on each grade. 

Here are the wholesale grades : 



Year. 



1885 

1886 

1887 

1888 

1889 

28 



Manilla. 



Cents. 

12 Ji 
13>^ 
13>^ 
153^ to 16 



Mixed, half 
and half. 



Cents. 
13i^ 
lli^ 
13 
13 

14 to 15 



Sisal. 



Cents. 

lOi^ 
12^ 

13 



218 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

They say that this is the wholesale price, and from 2 to 3 cents a pound are 
added, which raises the price of this binding-twine for 1889 from 17 to 19 cents per 
pound on the wheat fields of Minnesota. 

Mr. McPhekson. Will it interfere with the Senator if I should ask him a 
question ? 

Mr. Davis. I think it will. I want to pursue this matter closely ; it is a matter 
of detail. 

In 1888 Mr. R. M. Brown, of Crookston, Minn., wrote that the price of binder- 
twine for the past six years has been an average of 16^ cents per pound ; it takes 
2 pounds per acre ; and that the average amount required costs about 2 cents for 
every bushel. That is the statement which comes to me from two sources as to 
the cost." 

In less favored localities the cost of twine per bushel of grain is, of course, 
much greater. 

Cotton hagging. Senator Vance and others tried to have cotton bagging placed 
on the free list. This, too, is controlled by a trust. The Democrats voted to free 
this article ; the Republicans voted to tax it from three to five-tenths of a cent per 
square yard, according to value. 

Senator Jones of Arkansas said concerning this tax : 

"Mr. President, I have no hope of making any impression on any member of 
the majority by what I am going to say. There are, as a rule, not half a dozen of 
those gentlemen in the Senate Chamber during the discussion, and those who are 
present pay no attention to arguments which are presented against what we con- 
ceive to be wrongs embodied in this pending bill. I know it to be utterly useless 
for me to call their attention to the fact that just about two years ago I presented 
a resolution to this body asking that the Finance Committee be directed to inquire 
into the cause of the recent very great advance in the price of cotton-bagging, and 
stating that I had been advised that there had been a combination among the cot- 
ton-bagging producers to increase the price of that article enormously. 

" The testimony taken by that committee at that time showed that those who 
^ere engaged in manufacturing cotton-bagging had increased the price suddenly in 
the middle of the summer from about 7 cents to 11| cents at the time the resolution 
was presented and ultimately to 12 or 13 cents, but the facts were that mills in Cal- 
cutta and Dundee would easily have supplied the demand for cotton-bagging in the 
United States and would have supplied it at a cost of about 4 cents a yard. There 
was a tax which, amounting to about 3 cents a yard I believe, together with the ocean 
freights, made it impossible to get foreign bagging here at less than about 7 cents, 
and 7 cents had been the ruling price of bagging for a long while. One of the 
owners of one of these mills stated that he had sold his entire product at a fraction, 
I think, below 7 cents, and at a satisfactory profit. He had refused to go into the 
combination. The owners of the mills frankly stated that they had made a combi- 
nation, and called it, I believe, a sympathetic movement, but this sympathetic move- 
ment resulted in absolutely robbing the cotton growers of the United States of 
about $3,000,000 in money on a single crop. 

" I called the attention of the dominant party in this body at that time to the fact 
that the high duty they were levying upon cotton-bagging rendered it possible for 
those men to perpetrate and carry out that robbery, and I appealed to them to pro- 
tect the cotton-growers of this country from that sort of outrage. But nothing was 
done. I offered, when the tariff bill of 1888 was pending here, amendments to 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



219 



lessen tlie tariff upon this article so as to render it possible that those who pro- 
duce the cotton-bagging abroad might manufacture this article and bring it to this 
country. When the nefarious schemes of our own manufacturers showed that they 
were attempting to plunder our own people, nothing was done. All measures of 
relief were voted down then as they are voted down now, blindly, and without con- 
sideration, and as they will continue to be voted down, no doubt, until the end of 
the session. 

" Now, what has this bill done ? Recollecting that experience which occurred 
only two years ago under their own eyes, what have they done ? They have low- 
ered the tax on cotton-bagging ; they have given the raw product to cotton-bag- 
ging manufacturers free. They put at that time a tax of $5 a ton on jute butts 
and a tax of 30 per cent, on jute ; but instead of relieving the people from this pres- 
sure this bill proposes to make jute butts and jute free, to give this same combina- 
tion of infamous robbers their raw material without any tariff, while they practi- 
cally do not reduce the- tariff upon the manufactured product at all. 

" It would seem as if the Committee on Finance had concluded that the robbery of 
two years ago was not so great as it ought to be, and they intended to make it greater 
and to make this still worse ; and to show this wrong in its own proper colors^ 
it is only necessary to refer to the fact that, in addition to this, we have now a 
proposition to increase the tax on cotton-ties. I have shown that the people are 
liable to be robbed by a combination of these bagging manufacturers of $3,000,000 
a year in the last crop, the crop they have just gotten through with, and now you 
propose to tax the cotton producers on the part of the Government, and to increase 
the tax on cotton-ties." 



The vote on free bagging was 



Bate, 

Berry, 

Blodgett, 

Carlisle, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 



Aldrich, 

Allen, 

Allison, 

Blair, 

Cameron, 

Casey, 

CuUom, 

Dawes, 





YEAS-34. 




Colquitt, 


Jones of Arkansas, 


Turpie, 


Daniel, 


McPherson, 


Vance, 


Faulkner, 


Pasco, 


Vest, 


Gorman, 


• Pugh, 


Voorhees, 


Gray, 


Ransom, 


WalthaU, 


Harris, 


Reagan, 
NAYS-31. 


Wilson of Md. 


Dixon, 


Mitchell, 


Squire, 


Frye, 


Moody, 


Stewart, ^ 


Hawley, 


Pierce, 


Stockbridge, 


Higgins, 


Piatt, 


Teller, 


Hiscock, 


Plumb, 


Washburn, 
Wilson of Iowa, 


Hoar, 


Quay, 


Jones of Nevada 


, Sanders, 


Wolcott. 


McMiUan, 


Sawyer, 





Yeas all Democrats ; nays all Republicans. 

This was another indication of sectionalism and partiality. The Senate voted 
for free twine for the farmers in the North and against free bagging for the farmers 
in the South, though the argument was as strong for one as for the other. The 
first motion was made by a Republican to tickle and fool the farmers of his section, 
who are opposed to protection, but in favor of the Republican party ; the second 
by a Democrat to benefit the farmers of his section, who are opposed to the 
Republican party and all sorts of Republicanism. 

Cotton Ties. The tax on ties has been raised from W per cent, to 103.71 per 
cent. It will " check imports " effectually and cotton ties hereafter will probably 
cost at least $303.71 for a quantity worth $100. Ties now cost from 2 to 3 cents 
per pound. "With entire control of the market the manufacturers can make the 



•220 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



price as high as they choose, and should imports begin, they can reduce the price 
and ruin anybody who has the temerity to engage in importing, just as the manu- 
facturers of quinine did when they had a tax on that article. There are from five 
to six ties to the bale of cotton. There are 7,000,000 of bales produced in the South, 
.and 11,000,000 in the world of unmanufactured cotton. We exported in the year 
.ending June 30, 1890, 4,996,543 bales of short staple, or 2,462,579,034 pounds. We 
■exported 24,370 bales of sea-island cotton, or 9,221,819 pounds, the total value being 
$251,000,000. The disadvantage at which this tax places us in the foreign market 
is thus apparent. The manufacturers can easily add 50 cents to each bale of cotton. 
'That amount will turn the scale in any market in the world. This is Republican 
friendship for the negro, who works the cotton. 

Wool. The rates established on wool are shown under the head " The history 
of tariff changes." 

The following tables are interesting : 



Table I. — List of Free Wool Countries. 



-Austria, 
Belgium, 
British India, 
'Canada, 
Chili, 



Denmark, 
France, 
Germany, 
Great Britain 
Greece, 



Italy, 

The Netherlands, 

New South Wales, 

Norway, 

Portugal, 



Sweden, 
Victoria, 
New Zealand. 



All these countries that are our principal competitors in the manufacture of 
woolen goods allow the importation of wools duty free. Now, what are the 
countries that levy tax upon wool ? Among them we find the United States of 
America. One that should be found in the list of free-wool countries is found in 
the list of these countries that impose a duty. 

Table II. — Showing countries levying import duties upon unmanufactured wool^ with 
amount of same reduced to United States currency. 



Per pound. 

Brazil <...<... *$0.02 

United States 10 

San Salvador 06 

Ecuador. .- 059 

Porto Kico 059 

Mexico 046 

Peru 041 

Argentine Republic (t) 

Hayti 040 

Honduras 033 

* Add 65 per cent, ad valorem. 
+25 per cent, ad valorem. 



Per pound. 

United States of Colombia $0,023 

Russia 016 

Korea (X) 

Roumcinia 01 

Turkey 0072 

China 0036 

Spain 0031 

Switzerland 0006 

Siam (§) 

X 8 per cent, ad valorem. 
§ 3 per cent ad valorem. 



Brazil is the only country having a duty anywhere approaching ours. Among 
;the free wool countries are found those that control the woolen goods market of 
the world. 

This table shows how the price of wool has fallen in this country under a high 
ttariff. The wool tariff of 1867 was the one that was levied at the behest of the 
igrowers and manufacturers. See the " History." 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



221 



Trices of fine, medium and c&ar^e washed fleece wool in the New York market for tli^ months 
of January, April, July and October from each year from 1824 to 1890, inclusive. 

I From Mauger & Avery'a Annual Wool circular.] 



Year- 



1826 

1827 

1828 

1829 

1830 

1831 



1833. 
1834. 
1835. 
1836. 
1837. 
1838. 
1839. 
1840. 
1841. 
1842. 
1843. 
1844. 
1845. 
18*6. 
1847. 
1848. 
1849. 
1850. 
1851- 
1852. 
1853. 
1854. 
1855. 
1856. 
1857. 
1&58. 
1859. 
1860. 
1861. 



1863. 
1864. 
1865. 
1866. 
1867. 
1868. 
1869. 
1870. 
1871. 
1872. 
1873. 
1874. 
1875. 
1876. 
1877. 
1878. 
1879. 
1880. 
1881. 



1884. 
1885. 



1887. 



1890. 



January, 




April 






July. 




October. 




d 


6 




g 


05 




f^ 


6 




a 


. 




s 

5 


1 


s 


S 


1 


m 

a 


;i 


1 


01 


.3 


1 


^ 


a> 


o 


^ 


« 


o 


^ 


0) 


o 


a. 


Q 




S 


^ 




S 


^ 




^ 


"^ . 




g 


'^ 


Cts. 


Cts. 


Cts. 


cts. 


Cts. 


Cts. 


cts. 


cts. 


Cts. 


cts. 


Cts. 


Cts. 


68 


53 


40 


70 


46 


31 


,55 


40 


,30 


60 


40 


30 


60 


43 


32 


60 


42 


3;^ 


.50 


41 


,32 


50 


42 


36 


55 


43 


38 


52 


46 


41 


37 


30 


26 


43 


37 


32 


36 


32 


28 


45 


.34 


30 


.37 


31 


25 


43 


32 


25 


42 


30 


25 


44 


.36 


28 


48 


38 


,a3 


48 


40 


33 


54 


45 


,35 


45 


a5 


32 


46 


36 


32 


47 


30 


37 


40 


a5 


,30 


50 


;^ 


32 


60 


fA, 


40 


70 


60 


48 


70 


60 


48 


70 


60 


50 


75 


a5 


.50 


70 


60 


50 


65 


55 


44 


60 


52 


42 


,50 


42 


30 


50 


40 


30 


55 


41 


,33 


63 


.53 


38 


61 


.54 


40 


65 


55 


45 


70 


60 


48 


67 


56 


44 


60 


.50 


40 


62 


50 


40 


63 


.50 


40 


65 


60 


45 


63 


56 


42 


65 


60 


45 


65 


60 


45 


68 


62 


47 


70 


60 


.50 


70 


60 


50 


72 


63 


48 


68 


56 


46 


52 


.52 


.36 


49 


40 


31 


50 


42 


,35 


50 


42 


a5 


46 


.36 


30 


56 


48 


37 


56 


48 


38 


56 


48 


38 


57 


48 


40 


60 


55 


44 


.50 


45- 


38 


49 


43 


36 


45 


39 


.a3 


46 


38 


33 


52 


45 


35 


53 


46 


37 


,50 


44 


.34 


48 


42 


33 


48 


42 


35 


46 


40 


32 


43 


37 


30 


38 


31 


35 


35 


30 


25 


33 


28 


25 


,a5 


.30 


26 


36 


32 


26 


37 


30 


26 


43 


36 


30 


45 


37 


,32 


50 


40 


33 


47 


40 


31 


45 


38 


;t2 


40 


36 


30 


38 


35 


28 


40 


,35 


,30 


38 


a3 


28 


,38 


.32 


27 


36 


30 


23 


45 


40 


30 


47 


40 


31 


46 


40 


31 


47 


40 


30 


45 


38 


30 


43 


37 


30 


38 


.32 


28 


33 


30 


24 


33 


30 


23 


40 


.36 


30 


40 


35 


28 


42 


36 


30 


47 


40 


33 


45 


37 


30 


45 


.37 


,30 


46 


40 


35 


46 


40 


,33 


50 


44 


36 


47 


42 


37 


45 


40 


35 


43 


38 


,34 


42 


,36 


33 


45 


.38 


a3 


50 


42 


37 


58 


56 


50 


62 


56 


.50 


60 


53 


48 


55 


50 


48 


.53 


47 


42 


57 


52 


46 


45 


37 


,30 


42 


36 


30 


40 


a5 


32 


43 


,a5 


33 


,50 


40 


,a3 


52 


41 


36 


50 


38 


a5 


57 


45 


38 


55 


42 


,36 


60 


55 


45 


58 


50 


42 


60 


56 


45 


,56 


.50 


40 


38 


30 


25 


40 


,33 


27 


42 


35 


30 


43 


37 


.30 


56 


41 


36 


60 


.52 


45 


60 


46 


37 


56 


40 


,a5 


60 


50 


42 


60 


50 


42 


52 


45 


40 


.55 


.50 


40 


50 


45 


40 


45 


40 


37 


45 


37 


32 


38 


,30 


22 


47 


48 


50 


48 


.50 


,50 


46 


45 


43 


48 


47 


45 


60 


60 


63 


75 


68 


70 


80 


a5 


80 


75 


70 


65 


a5 


80 


76 


80 


78 


76 


78 


77 


72 


1(X) 


100 


90 


ia3 


95 


100 


102 


100 


96 


80 


80 


75 


75 


73 


a5 


75 


V5 


65 


70 


65 


,50 


65 


60 


48 


70 


67 


60 


63 


60 


56 


68 


.53 


,50 


60 


,55 


.50 


55 


49 


45 


48 


46 


40 


48 


43 


38 


50 


48 


45 


46 


45 


43 


48 


48 


45 


50 


.50 


48 


50 


,50 


48 


48 


48 


47 


48 


48 


46 


48 


46 


44 


48 


47 


46 


46 


45 


43 


48 


48 


44 


47 


46 


43 


50 


.52 


47 


62 


60 


.55 


ft3 


62 


58 


70 


72 


-66 


80 


80 


76 


72 


70 


a5 


66 


60 


57 


70 


68 


65 


56 


,53 


48 


.50 


48 


44 


54 


63 


47 


58 


54 


47 


56 


56 


47 


.53 


.53 


46 


.54 


54 


47 


55 


.56 


47 


54 


52 


46 


.52 


49 


46 


48 


50 


43 


48 


.52 


42 


46 


49 


40 


38 


.a5 


31 


45 


40 


33 


46 


43 


36 


45 


40 


a^ 


.50 


44 


37 


48 


44 


36 


44 


45 


38 


40 


43 


,a5 


36 


.36 


,32 


35 


37 


32 


34 


,35 


32 


34 


,34 


.31 


37 


38 


.34 


41 


43 


38 


.50 


55 


48 


55 


60 


,52 


46 


48 


42 


46 


48 


42 


47 


49 


43 


40 


44 


37 


42 


44 


.36 


43 


46 


36 


44 


415 


47 


42 


45 


34 


42 


45 


.34 


42 


45 


34 


40 


43 


33 


44 


44 


37 


39 


41 


.33 


39 


40 


34 


40 


40 


34 


38 


38 


34 


a5 


;34 


30 


a5 


34 


30 


34 


m 


29 


32 


.32 


28 


32 


31 


28 


a3 


35 


33 


a5 


m 


32 


33 


34 


30 


a^ 


a^ 


29 


a5 


38 


34 


33 


38 


,34 


33 


37 


.33 


34 


37 


.34 


32 


36 


34 


31 


a5 


,33 


31 


34 


33 


29 


a^ 


.31 


31 


34 


31 


34 


.38 


33 


33 


37 


31 


.a5 


39 


32 


,33 


37 


31 


33 


37 


29 





















NOTE.— Wool, owing to its wide variety, difference in character and condition, liability to shrink In 
cleaning, is precluded from speculative operations which apply to products which may be dealt in as 
*f utures." For these reasons the prices of wool are not liable to the same changes as cotton, wheat, etc. 






DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Of course deductions of freight, etc., have to be made in order to obtain far- 
mers' prices. 

The following shows the decrease in the number of sheep in various States : 

Number of sheep iji the several States named at the given dates, as stated in the United 
States Agricultural Reports. 



States. 


1866. 


1867. 


1869. 


1877. 


1878. 


1879. 


1880. 


Ohio 


6,568,052 
3,473,075 
3,230,440 
5,117,148 

2,783,367 
2,446,081 
1,260,900 
1,950,752 


7,159,177 

4,028,767 
3,456,568 
5,373,005 
3,033,870 
2,764,072 
1,664,338 
2,399,425 


6,300,000 
3,553,371 
3,045,5?1 
4,247,359 
2,622,780 
2,380,694 
1,749,104 
2,332,241 


3,900,000 
2,100,000 
1,607,000 
1,897,700 
1,175,700 
1,258,500 
1,151,100 
1,680,500 


3,783,000 
1,750,000 
1,607,600 
1,518,100 
1,092,700 
1,258,500 
1,323,700 
560,000 


4,040,000 
1,820,000 
1,660,000 
2,121,000 
1,089,500 
l,a39,000 
1,313,000 
445,000 


4,243,616 


Michigan 

Pennsylvania . 

New York 

Indiana 

Illinois 


l,930,ft56 
1,632,807 
2,338,148 
1,029,570 
1,155,232 


Wisconsin 

Iowa 


1,329,261 

463,488 




Total 


26,829,815 


29,879,222 


26,231,130 


14,769,800 


13,893,600 


13,537.500 


14,132,778 






920,195 


786,002 
2,200,400 


2,826,700 
7,290,000 


3,674,700 
6,561,600 


4,560,000 
6,889,000 


6,023,628 
7,493,864 


California 












Total .... 




940,195 


2,986,402 


10,116,700 


10,236,;J00 


11,449,000 


13,517,492 







States. 


1882. 


1883. 


1884. 


1885. 


1886. 


1887. 


1888. 


Ohio 


4,951,511 

2,320,752 
1,785,481 
1,732,332 
1,111,516 
1,026,702 
1,350,175 
472,681 


5,050,541 
2,436,790 
1,803,336 
1,732,332 
1,122,631 
1,149,906 
1,363,677 
497,161 


5,000,036 
2,412,433 
1,719,236 
1,732,332 
1,145,084 
1,136,908 
1,336,403 
497,161 


4,900,035 
2,364,174 
1,486,857 
1,697,685 
1,133,182 
1,093,101 
1,282,947 
472,303 


4,753,034 
2,369,607 
1,187,481 
1,595,825 
1,088,517 
1,005,653 
1,218,800 
467,580 


4,562,913 
3,156,137 
1,094,333 
1,579,856 
1,034,091 

925,201 
1,072,544 

425,498 


4,065,556 
2,134,134 

935,646 
1,548,426 
1,420,000 

773,468 


Michigan 

Pennsylvania . 

New York 

Indiana 

Illinois 


Wisconsin 


793,146 
540,700 






Total 


14,761,150 


15,166,374 


14,999,583 


14,419,284 


13,586,496 


12,840,563 


13,211,076 


Texas 


6,850,000 
6,352,344 


7,877,500 
5,907,680 


7,956,275 
6,203,064 


7,558,461 
5,892,911 


6,802,615 
6,069,698 


4,761,831 
5,462,728 


5,659,451 
3,655,000 


California 


Total 


13,302,344 


13,784,180 


14,159,339 


13,450,372 


13,873,313 


10,324,559 


8,615,451 



The wool tax prevents our mixing foreign wools with the domestic for ship- 
ment abroad, thus shutting us out of foreign markets, curtailing our demand for 
domestic wool and for labor. Consequently foreigners control all foreign markets 
and ship large consignments of goods to us. General Grant said in 1875 : 

" These duties not only come from consumers at home, but act as a protection to for- 
eign manufacturers of the same completed articles in our own and distant maz-kets." 

Here is an extract from a letter written by a wool grower in Ohio, one of the 
leading citizens of the State : 

I have been interested, in a small way, for some years in the growing of merino wool 
on my farm in Vinton county, Ohio, and have ascertained how the prices paid to growers 
are fixed from year to year. 

The sheep-raisers do not fix the price ; they do not say to the agents of the buyers for 
our woolen factories: "We are asking— have fixed— such a price on our wool this year." 
But the buyers say : " We give so much for wool this year." 

What is that price ? Invariably only so much above the natural level of prices fixed, 
regulated, and controlled by the London (Mark Lane) and Liverpool prices as will pre- 
vent our wool-growers from exporting their wool at a profit over home prices. 

Long knowing this, by having carefully studied the prices paid to m-st hands for some 
years, I tested it. 

In the spring of 1888 we had to sell our wool, washed in the fieece on the sheep, Ohio 
XX, for 28 cents per pound. In the spring of 1889 the price generally paid for the same 
was 30 cents per pound. We got 31 cents, owing to much of it being XXX. 

Kepubljcan stumpers went through the wool-growing districts last fall and told the 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



223 



people that Cleveland and Carlisle's tariff talk had put wool down to 28 cents per pound 
in 1888, and that Harrison's election, with the certainty of high protection on wool, had 
raisedthe price to 30 cents. 

I knew that this was idle talk, as a Republican Senate would prevent tariff reduction 
■by Cleveland and Carlisle, that it was but the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, con- 
currence for cause and effect, the same as a gravely proposed remedy in an agricultural 
paper for grub in sheep' noses. The man proposing the prevention had a flock of sheep 
with long, natural tails that were fi-ee from the grub, and a neighbor had a flock with the 
tails cut short, and they had the grub, ergo, to prevent grab let sheeps' tails alone. 

But, to test my discovery that our woolen manufacturers only paid for our wool 
enough above the natural level of prices, as fixed by the free competition of the world, as 
would prevent its export at a profit above such prices ; that they are compelled to do this 
to recoup as much as possible, in the prices paid to home growers, the high duties they 
pav on imported wools, which are necessary for mixing, I, in October, 1889, wrote to the 
N ational Stockmah and Farmer, published in Pittsburgh, Pa., to give me the Liverpool 
prices of such wool, for the six months, April to September, of 1888 and 1889. 

Kemember that when wool is not washed on the sheep, if it brings 21 to 24 cents per 
pound, the same if so washed will bring 30 cents per pound and over. October 10, 1889, 
that paper, at page 506, states as follows : 

"At the request of a reader we have secured some figures for comparing the prices of 
Australian wools (unwashed) in Liverpool last year and this year with those of a corres- 
ponding grade of Ohio wool. For the facts here given we acknowledge obligations to 
Justice, Bateman & Co., Philadelphia : 



April. 
May. 



June 

July 

August 

September 



Australian, 

Port St. Philip, 

unwashed. 



Cents. 
21 
21 



22 



Cents. 
25 
25 
26 
26>^ 



Ohio XX, 
washed. 



1888. 



Cents. 
31 
29X 



28 
30>^ 



Cents. 
33>i 
33 
33 
34 
31>^ 
34 



Here follows a letter that will amply repay a careful persual. It is dated 
Hyde Park, Mass., June 18, 1890: 

To illustrate how manufactures will increase and flourish when freed from artificial 
Impediments, I quote the following concerning silk manufacture from the American 
Almanac, 1886: 



1870. 



1880. 



Percentage of 
increase. 



Establishmets — 

Capital 

Hands employed 

Wages 

Value of product 



$6,200,000 

6,699 

$1,900,000 

$12,700,000 



382 

$19,100,000 

31,337 

$9,100,000 

$41,000,000 



334 



373 
223 



Now, in the same days when raw silk was taxed, raw wool also was heavily taxed, but 
In 1857 the same statesman like sagacity which had freed silk from its burden substantially 
relieved wool, and from that time to 1861 our manufactm-e of woolen goods increased In 
magnitude by leaps and bounds. When the war broke out every possible source of reve- 
nue was utilized, and wool had to bear its share of the public burden. In 1861 a tariff tax 
of 5 per cent, was placed on wool costing not over 18 cents ; the next year it was raised to 
15 per cent, on all wool costing between 18 and 24 cents ; in 1863 Canada wool was admitted 
free ; from 1864 to 1867 the tax was from 25 to 30 per cent, on value. This was the ultimate 
limit of the burden which the able and patriotic leaders of the Republican party thought 
wool should bear, and this with other like taxes, was deprecated by those leaders, was 
excused as an undesirable necessity occasioned by the great cost of the civil war, and 
they solemnly pledged themselves to secure its removal as soon as that necessity ceased. 
It was submitted to, under these pledges and the hope of an earlv relief, as cheerfully as 
might be. But alas I for misplaced confidence. In violation of those pledges, in 1867, "two 
years after the war had ended, a combination of certain carpet manufacturers, woolen 
goods manufacturers, and Western wool-growers, as mischievous as any of the present 
trust combinations of Standard Oil or sugar monopolists, was suffered to log-roll a bill 
through Congress imposing a duty of from 50 to 60 per cent, on all clothing wools imported 
into this country. Many of our ablest manufacturers then predicted that this would do 



224 



DKMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



great injury to the woolen industry of the country, and those predictions have been 
abundantly verified. 

It is needless to produce here statistics to show this. The fact is universally known 
and admitted, and the excuse offered for retaining or increasing the duty on wool is that 
it is for the benefit of the wool raisers and to stimulate production. The same reason was 
feiven in 1867, and the wool raisers this side of the Missouri river (for at time hardly any 
wool was grown on the other side) promised to give us all the wool the country needed in 
return for that high protection. They have not kept that promise. On the contrary, 
they have either gone out of the business or brought their flocks down to a mutton con- 
sumption basis. 

This is shown by the fact that the number of sheep east of the Missouri has diminished 
from 22,000,000 to 9,000,000 ; and even in the States and Territories west of the Missouri, 
where most of the wool is raised to-day, the same condition is apparent in the slaughter 
of lambs for the table— notably in Colorado, Texas and California. In the latter State the 
wool clip has fallen from 56,000,000 pounds to 30,000,000 pounds, as appears by the f oUowing^ 
table, for the accm-acy of which I will vouch : 



Year. 


Clip. 


Year. 


Clip. 


1876 


Pounds. 

56,550,970 
53,110,742 
40,862,091 
46,903,360 
46,074,154 
45,076,639 


1 1882 


Pounds. 

40,527,639- 
40,848,690 
37 415,330 
36,561,390 
38,509,160 
31,564,231 


1877 


1883 


1878 


1884 


1879 


1885 


1880 


1886 


1881 


1887 







This can not be from lack of enough protection on wool, for the tax of 10 cents per 
pound on this kind of wool is equal to a protection of 60 to 75 pei cent. It is because mut- 
ton is worth 40 per cent, more now than it was in 1876, and the sheep farmer can get better 
returns, at less trouble, by selling his sheep for the table than by keeping them for their 
wool. 

The following table shows the winter price of wether mutton in San Francisco during 
the period from 1876 : 



Year. 


Price. 


Year. 


Price. 


1876 


S3. 50 
3.50 
3.50 
3.75 
3.75 
4.00 
4.50 


1883 


$4.00 
4.0O 


1877 , 


1884 


1878 


1885 


4.50 


1879 


1886 

1887 


4.25 


1880 


4.00 


1881 


1888.. 


5.00 


1882 


1889 


4.90 









I have demonstrated in a letter previously published that in the twenty years, from 
1867 to 1887, a time of high protection on wool, the number of sheep in this country in- 
creased less than 3 per cent, annually, while their normal increase when not slaughtered 
for food is at least 50 per cent, annually ; and that upwards of 20,000,000 sheep were killed 
yearly to meet the demand for mutton. 1 think that those statements have not been 
publicly questioned. 

It is then evident from all the foregoing that the sheep farmer does not need protec- 
tion to enable him to reap the full benefit of the market which he prefers, the mutton 
market; and that he does not deserve protection at the expense of .other industries, 
because by his own act he has put it out of his power to keep his promises and supply the 
wool which the necessities of the country demand. 

In the resolutions adopted by tlie National Association of Wool Manufacturers at its 
annual meeting, October 2, 1889, it is stated that " the quantity of foreign wool introduced 
into this country in the shape of goods and yarns has increased to the enormous total of 
141,474,144 pounds in 1888, equaling 44 per cent, of our total home production of wools of all 
description," thus placing our home production at 321,532,000 pounds as it comes from the 
sheep's back ; but Mr. J. D. Truitt, of Dolan & Co., of Philadelphia, a most unimpeachable 
authority, shows that all this domestic wool, when cleaned for cloth-making purposes^ 
amounted in 1889 to 134,795,a50 pounds. 

Deducting 15 per cent, lost in manufacturing, there are left 114,576,048 pounds of cloth, 
not 24 ounces for each of our population, estimating the latter at 60,000,000. As it will take 
72 ounces of woolen cloth to make a suit for a man or a dress for a woman, it is easy to 
see that many must get along with very little wool in their clothing even when we 
include all that is imported ; and if restricted to home production the quantity of wool in 
a so-called woolen coat will be hardly enough to decently veneer the cotton and 
shoddy in it. 

Therefore, the more prohibitory the duty on wool, the gi-eater must be the quantity if 
shoddy and cotton used in manufacture to supply the ))lace of the wool which our sheep 
farmers do not and will not supply to us. This state of things is not desirable from any 
point of view. It not only cripples the manufacturer and cheats the consumer, but it even. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 225 

injures the wool-raiser in the very matter wh'ch he Is apparently so anxious to protect, 
the price of his wool. For the more extensively shoddy is used to clothe the people the 
less will be the demand for and the price of wool. 

I am an ardent admirer of the tariff bill prepared by the House of Representatives 
when you were its Speaker, and known as the Mills bill, because it proposed to give our 
industry free wool and open to it the same chances for development that are en;joyed by 
the silk, cotton, and leather industries, which, getting their material at the world's 
market price, have expanded and grown until they are a credit to our country, and do a 
profitable exporting business. All that has been possible for them is possible for the 
woolen industry under similar conditions. 

Put it upon the same plane, take it out of politics, and cease making a foot-ball of it, 
and this industry, which even now, in New England, has an output whose yearly value is 
nearly $150,000,000, and in which about 80,000 people find employment and the security of 
their homes, will again present as tempting a channel for New England capital as it 
did when our Lowells and our Lawrences were built up. Let us return again to the ante- 
war precepts, when legislation was not wholly in the interests of monopolists, nor neg- 
lected the busy wheel whose hum is New England's sweetest music, giving labor to her 
people and surrounding their homes with needed comforts. 

As illustrative of what the woolen-manufacturing industry might do, if comparitively 
unhampered by vexatious legislation, I will refer briefly to the manufacture of carpets. 
In that business, 8,843,691 pounds of wool were consumed in 1860 ; in 1887, 77,504,477 pounds 
were used. Practically all of this was Imported, as the home production of carpet wool 
that year was only 4,000,000 pounds, and double that quantity was used in other manufac- 
ture than that of carpets. The wool so imported paid a duty of at least 2>^ cents per 
pound. Thus we see that the carpet industry, not debarred under a duty of only 3>^ cents 
per pound from going upon the markets of the world for its raw material, in those twenty- 
seven years increased over 876 per cent. 

It is interesting to note, also, that the duty paid that year on this Imported wool was 
over $3,000,000, while the whole value of the home production was only $640,000 ! This ex- 
hibits to perfection the beauties of indiscriminating protection. 

For advocating such views as I have here expressed during the last Presidential cam- 
paign, I and others met the determined opposition of Republican politicians and home- 
protection organizations ; and we were called free-traders for asking that the pledges 
made by the representatives of the Government twenty-five years ago be redeemed. Of 
course, we know that those who cried out "free-trade " did so only to cover up their real 
designs. 

It is, however, rather amusing to hear them now attempt to curry favor with the 
people of New England by claiming that the McKinley bill puts more articles on the free- 
list than the Mills bill, as was done here a short time ago by Mr. Dingley, of Maine. We 
were also assured, two years ago, that the success of the Republican party with its high 
protective platform would revive all the drooping branches of business and make every 
one happy. Especially was this to be so in the woolen industry. But in looking back over 
the last two years we do not find much to be thankful for, unless we can be comforted 
like the farmer's wife from Mr. Dingley's district in Maine, who, when asked how she had 
been during the winter, answered that she "had enjoyed very poor health." 

I find that in 1889 the number of failures among wool dealers was 11, liabilities $2,293,- 
000, assets $1,381,000; wool manufacturers 61, liabilities $8,149,000, assets $5,651,000. Total 
failures 72, libilities $10,442,000, assets $7,032,000. 

This is not very cheering of itself. When compared with the previous year it is less so. 
Then the number of faiures among wool dealers was 8, liabilities $536,000, assets $253,000; 
wool manufacturers 49, liabilities $3,101,000, assets $1,723,000. Total 57, liabilities $3,637,000, 
assets $1,976,000. In 1889 the number of failures was 15 per cent, greater, the liabilities 150 
per cent, greater, the assets less than half as much. 

If this is the result when increased tax on wool is only threatened, what will happen 
when such a tax is an actual fact ? The only hope is in the fact that the lessons taught 
by tariff reformers is daily taking a firmer and deeper root among the laboring'* 
masses. As when our Saviour sought for disciples He took them from among the fisher- 
men on the banks of Galilee, whose plastic minds were open to receive impressions,, 
while educated ignorance, the child of prejudice, in the temples could receive no light, so 
now the truths of tariff reform find their converts among those whose labor is their sole* 
capital. 

If the adjustment of this matter rested with their votes, the woolen industry and all 
6ther manufacturing industries would quickly stand where they ought, side by side wit'«- 
cotton, silk, and leather ; and indeed we have the reported statement of Mr. McKinley, 
the author of the present bill, that every argument which can be urged in favor of taxing 
applies with equal force to taxing hides. As he seems now to be reconciled to free hides, 
may I not hope that before long he may become a convert to free wool ? 
Very truly yours, 

ROBERT BLEAKIE. 

Hon, John G. Carlisle. 

Tin plates. We do not manufacture a pound of tin plate. Every attempt to 
manufacture it here lias been a signal failure, yet the McKinley bill increases the 
duty from 1 cent to 2.2 cents per pound, in order to establish the industry, as it is 
claimed. 

We imported last year 727,945,972 pounds, worth $21,002,209.15, on which we 
paid a tax of $7,279,459.72. The new duty will make the tax on the same quantity 
$16,014,811.38, or will increase the ad valorem rate from 34.66 to 76.24 per cent. 
This is a discrimination against every industry now in existence in favor of one 



226 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

not in existence. It bears most heavily on the canning and tin-roofing industries 
and is in the especial interest of the manufacturers of sheet iron and other substi- 
tutes for tin. It is the special hobby of that spectral body, the American Tin-Plate 
Association, having its local habitation in Pittsburgh and living on the hope of 
having the people taxed for its enrichment. It never had an occupation other than 
that of a mendicant. Its chronic mendicity has at last brought it alms, and, here- 
after, by a sort of Republican adfiliation, it will draw its maintenance and support 
from the pockets of the people. 

The tax will be felt in every household in the land. The price of every article 
of tin will be increased. 

Here are some of the items of tinware upon the raw material which the duty 
s to be more than doubled : Coffee-pots,- sauce-pans, oil-cans, drinking-cups, dish- 
pans and kettle-pans, milk-kettles, colanders, tea-kettles, wash-boilers, bread-pans, 
lard-cans, dairy-pans, wash-basins, pie-plates, strainers and dinner-cans. All these 
are indispensable articles. The poor can not afford china. It is so easily broken 
and destroyed in the rough usage to which it would be subjected that they have to 
use tin, and nothing else can be used. There is no substitute for it, and every can- 
ning factory in the United States and every cabin in the United States, and every 
man, woman and child in those factories and in those cabins is to be heavily taxed 
for the purpose of enabling Mr. Cronemyer and his associates to get out of the 
quandary that the competition of tin-plate puts on their sheet-iron. 

The cost of every tin roof and of every can of food will be increased to the 
poor to augment the wealth of a few men already rich. 

Sugar is placed upon the free list because we produce such a small propor- 
tion — about one-eighth, of our consumption ; tin-plates are to be subjected to more 
than a double duty because we produce no proportion whatever of our consump- 
tion ! There is just as much logic in this as in any other part of the bill. 

The Ways and Means report says : 

The bill provides that the increased duty shall not go into effect until July 1, 1891, and it 
is believed that manufacturers, encouraged by this pT'oposed legislation in the mean time, 
will adapt their plants to the new production, and that in the end the advanced duty will 
not enhance the cost to the consumer, but eventuate in lower and steadier prices to the 
American consiuner. 

This is the same old jargon that the people have always heard when they were 
about to be robbed. The result that is always promised " in the end " has never 
been enjoyed by the consumers, and not a single article heretofore subjected to a 
tax has ever been placed at a lower rate with the consent of the manufacturers. 
On the contrary the demand has always been for a constantly increasing duty. 

The tin-plate mendicants promise to employ not fewer than 24,000 workmen in 
this new industry. As a matter of fact 30,000 men, women and children, all told, 
employed in Wales now supply the whole world with tin-plates, and one of the 
objections to the industry is the necessity of employing a large proportion of women * 
and children. 

But the beauty of the whole-scheme can be appreciated only by considering 
with the new tax the amendment made, on motion of Mr. Dalzell of Pittsburgh, to 
the imported contract labor bill in the House. It provides, as will be seen under 
the head of " Labor Legislation," for the importation of " the pauper labor of 
Europe " by those who engage in new industries, to fill their shops. Comment is 
unnecessary. 

The Senate added an amendment to allow tin-plates weighing less than 63 
pounds per 100 square feet to come in free after October 1, 1896, upon proclama- 



TARIFF TAXATION. 227 

tion by the President, unless during some five years preceding June 30, 1896, we 
produce one-third as much of such plates as we import for consumption ; but this 
provision is so hedged about with qualifications as to what shall and shall not be 
considered tin-plates within its meaning as to the computation that it will amount 
to nothing. 

Tin. This article is now on the free list. It is the raw material used to make 
tin-plates from sheets of iron. 

Somebody has discovered in the Black Hills a vein of tin, and this blessing is 
to be converted into a curse to our people by the levying of an additional tax on 
them for the support of the tin mine owners. 

Senator Moody exacted a promise from the Republicans on the Finance Com- 
mittee that this tax should be levied, and, to make sure that no squirming should 
be produced by the Tin-Plate Association, clinched the bargain by making Senator 
Aldrich admit the promise in open Senate before the amendment was considered. 
This is the amendment : 

On and after January first, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, there shall he imposed 
and paid upon cassiterites or black oxide of tin, and upon bar, block, and pig tin, a duty 
of 4 cents per pound. 

The opinion of the Republican party is that the Almighty made a great mis- 
take when he planted riches in the earth, and that it is its mission to do as much as 
possible to counteract this mistake of giving the world free gifts by taxing every 
resource in this country. No sooner is a discovery of any value made than the 
party proceeds to rob it of its benefits by making it cost the people as much as 
possible. 

The tin plate cormorants, however, followed the bill into conference and there 
succeeded in securing the spoils to themselves alone until July 1, 1893, and after 
July 1, 1895, So the other fellows will probably have but two years at the trough. 
This is the tin plate association's conference amendment, and is a part of the new 
law. 

Provided^ That uuless it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the President of 
the United States (who shall make known the fact by proclamation) that the product of 
the mines of the United States shall have exceeded five thousand tons of cassiterite, and 
bar, block, and pig tin in any one year prior to July 1, 1895, then all imported cassiterite, 
bar, block and pig tin shall, after July 1, 1895, be admitted free of duty. 

Of course an ordinarily acute mind can discover in this a covert confession 
that the tariff is a tax. If it is not a tax, wherein lies the objection of the tin- 
plate infant to the retention oi this daty ? 

The tin-plate fellows think the duty on their proposed product a most ben- 
eficient provision, but this tax on their raw material they regard as a great 
outrage. Its effect, by robbing them, will be to make their robbery of the people 
slightly more difiicult, though the booty under both taxes will ultimately come 
from the consumers of tin-plates. 

Steel Rails. Steel rails now pay $17.00 per ton tariff tax. The House fixed the 
tax at $13,44 and the Senate at $11.20 ; the conference restored the tax fixed in the 
House. We imported last year 26,539.88 tons of the standard size rails, worth 
$628,871.47, on which we paid a tax of $451,177.84, about 72 per cent. There was 
a boom in rails in England and a very dull market here. During a part of the 
year they sold at about the same price in both countries. 

The tariff tax is to " protect labor," so we have been told, though this hollow 
sham has been allowed to rest from its labors during a great part of the debate on 
this bill, and the Republicans have openly declared that they wish to protect ca^ »;tal 



•228 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

by covering the difference in the cost of production here and abroad in everything, 
labor being a mere incident. 

It is therefore important to inquire into the difference in wages and cost of 
production. 

The following from a letter of the acting Commissioner of Labor to Senator 
Edmunds shows the cost in the United States : 

Department of Laboh, Washington, D. C, August 6, 1890. 

Sir: Your letter of the date of August 2, in which you aslc for the amount paid for 
direct labor in the several processes of converting the natural elements, ore, limestone, 
coal and coke, into pig iron, into steel ingots, and eventually into one ton of steel rails, has 
been.received. 

In response, I have the honor to inclose a statement exhibiting the expenditure for 
direct labor through the successive stages of manufacture, meaning by this term the 
amount paid at each stage for wages of employes engaged in production. Ihis amount 
you will see is $11.59 out of a total cost of $25.77 for a ton of steel rails. The result does not 
agree exactly with the total cost of a ton of rails for any one of the establishments shown 
in the recent preliminary report by this department on cost of production. To have such 
absolute agreement it would be necessary, of course, starting with the rail mill to find 
where they bought their ingots, and at the ingot works to find where they bought their 
pig-iron, thus following hack to the original sources the narticular materials used, and 
obtaining the cost at each step. 

Not being able to do this the table has been worked out by using averages based on 
the six establishments in the northern district of the United States, producing material 
suitable for rails, as exhibited in the preliminary report. The result would not differ 
materially If any other six were used. One fact which slightly interferes with the best 
results is that the cost of ore, limestone, coal, and coke, as they have been obtained at 
the establishments producing them, differ somewhat from the costs for them as reported 
by the blast furnaces using them. This difference, of course, Is wholly consonant with 
the correctness of each, as it is probably due to the profit which the producer adds when 
he sells to the furnace, or to exceptional low or high cost of transportation from the place 
of production to that of use. 

Deducting from the cost of the ton, $25.77, the amount paid for direct labor, $11.59. 
there remains $14.18, which is distributed through various items of cost, such as officials 
and clerks, supples and repairs, taxes, etc. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



229 



CQ 



' 1 i2 I . 



9S8UBSU«UI0J 

-aaj puB (I^jog 



•Cl'BJOS 

pu'B aaputo 






« rM N 



«50 

§8 



uaqiuTX 



•pasn 

UOT!J'B!^aodsU'BJJj 



•sax'Bj, 



•sjiBdej 

pu'B saiddng 






•joQ'Bi aoajip JOJ 

saani^ipuedxa 



^3J 

o 



^ ^ 







+s 4-> 4i W « ^ „. 

O O O ^H St; o ^H 

o oo fl g'2 fl 

t, tn ^ O O C O 

ap,p,o 030 

t, fc< ^, ;h Ih O S-, 
00000 !^0' 



t-iONOseOrHNOOiNCOt-OOT 
rlrH 1-t- QQ OCO 1 

eooj 1010 ©53 coio I 






oa 



<i-i o 
0<i-i 

ft 



-*<M eO(M ift T-t 



d t-^^' 



St-) 

ifS. 



.73 ''S 
^ o 



O^ 
§0 



go §3 

® fl S 

<w m O 
^^-^ 






tS2 



3:rEP5-a' 



frt ^ -O "V'-' "d _■ 



a3 8S'§^'^i2*,iD^.o'3'-<i; 



'C!9 0ro^0^-'='o-*^0 ^Sl' 
§0 0^'t*^?^OH-g.SO 

13 o) o !!! K 



o 2; d ® o'S <» o-p ® ^ 2 d 
oTg-S ^ t>c-S > &C.S > Sicd w^ 

So. Oc3t^Oc!-Ofl-'-'<1^3 

o:j3S^-^o^:|fe^|5-S^ 
gp+s+3d-P43d+=+3dj,u.<D 

S^86it)8S^^8S'=c8s°'« 
d.a^^5-dt:-5'Ot^-5;gS.S 
-o^>^o^>o^go^«j§^^- 

«H«a3O2Mo2too5wd03c3t«d 

©2 o o;^ o oT^ o o;^ 0+3-^ e o 3 

^ O "<H O «^<M o "*. o «^-§^ « o 
oaiv!04"yo©<woa><MOa>«<wft 
4^.h 0^.ti O^.^H 0^.t, O^a Sh^ o<_, 

W43 . OT+3 . c343 ^ oS+a ^ 0643 ^ 

-tf w ti +3 cc t< -If M t. 43 X ;h +3 w ;li 
O O Oi o o ® o o a* O O <li o o ® 



230 DijMOCRATiC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The following from a letter from the Commissioner of Labor to Senator Car- 
lisle shows the cost in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe. 

Department of Laror, Washington, D. C, August 13, 1890. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of August 8, in which 
you ask for a statement showing the direct cost of labor in the manufacture of one ton of 
steel rails in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe, such statement to be prepared 
in the same way as that sent to Senator Edmunds on the 6th instant, relating to the cost 
of steel rails in the northern district of the United States. In reply I send you herewith 
three statements : 

Fh'st. An analysis of costs in one ton of standard steel rails made in the United 
States. This analysis is based mainly on establishment No. 1, reported on page 35, House 
Miscellaneous Documents To. 233 of the present session, and is substantially a copy of the 
statement sent to Senator Edmunds on the 6th instant. I have repeated it here because 
It was hurriedly made for Senator Edmunds, and the proper credit for the value of scrap 
produced in the ingot and rail departments was not made. The cost given in the state- 
ment of the 6th instant related to total gross cost of one ton of 2,240 pounds of steel rails 
in the northern district of the United States. This statement shows the total net cost of 
such a ton of steel rails. It varies but 11 cents from the total cost given as for establish- 
ment No. 1, page 35, of the document referred to. 

As stated, this statement is based mainly on establishment No. 1. It is not wholly so» 
because of the impossibiUty of tracing from the schedules relating to establishment No. 
1, the labor cost of all the materials entering into the manufacture of one ton of stand- 
ard steel rails ; so labor cost has been taken from several establishments making steel 
ingots. Using an average as derived from these several establishments makes a varia- 
tion of but 11 cents in the result. This fact clearly establishes the soundness of the analy- 
sis of cost as based on establishment No. 1, and as reported on page 35 of the document 
referred to. The credit for the value of scrap produced raises the per cent, of cosrt of 
direct labor in the production of one ton of standard steel rails from 45 per cent., as stated 
In the letter from this department of the 6th to Senator Edmunds, to 47 per cent., as 
shown in the last item in the statement herewith sent. 

Second. A statement showing the analysis of costs in one ton of standard steel rails 
made in Great Britain. The calculation in this statement is based on establishment No, 
23, page 35, House Miscellaneous Document No. 233. In this case we started with the cost 
of steel rails as given in the establishment just referred to, and were able to trace the 
costs back through the proceeding processes of making the blooms, ingots, pig-iron, coke, 
coal, and limestone, because all of these elements were made under the direction of the 
same company that made the rails, an d we had schedules covering all these costs. As to the 
iron ore, we did not have the exact mine from which it was taken, but we did have a rep- 
resentative mine in the same district from which it was taken, and we also had the cost 
for transportation given ; so that the element of possible error in calculating costs is of 
necessity very slight. 

As to "profit to producers," shown in the item relating to iron ore, a part of this is 
accounted for by the royalty or rent paid to the owners of the soil, which amounted to 
about 60 cents for the amount of ore shown in the statement. The remainder was made 
up by deducting the costs as calculated from the ore schedule from the cost delivered at 
the furnace, as charged in the pig-iron scheduje. You will notice that the total net cost of 
one ton of steel rails, as stated in this analysis', is $18,614, while the cost as shown in estab- 
lishment No. 11, page 3o of the report referred to, is $18,588, or a difference of only 2.6 cents. 

The labor at the establishment for which this analysis is made is paid less, I am informed^ 
than at most other steel-rail establishments in Great Britian, but we are obliged to take this 
establishment, as it was the only one having a schedule for standard rails and for the 
previous processes, and, furthermore, it is a representative establishment, whose produc- 
tion largely governs the price of standard steel rails. The other statement (No. 10) for 
Great Britian, on the same page, is for light rails, and the processes are not comparable 
fully with those for making standard rails. 

Third. A statement of analysis of costs in one ton of standard steel rails made on the 
continent of Europe, this statement being based mainly on establishment No. 3, page 35, 
House miscellaneous Document No. 233. The rails covered by this statement are standard 
steel rails, like those in the first and second statements just described. In making this 
analysis for the continent of Europe we were enabled to follow the processes back, as in 
the case of the English establishment, until we came to the pig-iron, when, owing to the 
hicompleteness of the pig-iron schedule for establishment No. 3, we found it necessary to 
use another schedule for the cost of converting materials into pig-iron. 

For the costs of materials themselves, except limestone and iron ore, we had data 
from establishment No. 3, and we used the schedules of that establishment. For the lime- 
stone we had the cost as reported at the pig-iron furnace, but had no schedules for the 
continent of Europe showing the amount of labor, etc., in 1 ton, so we used the cost as 
reported at the furnace, and subdivided that cost into elements in the same ratio as that 
indicated in the limestone schedules for the northern district of tlie United States. The 
iron ore used was the same kind as that used in tlie English case just given ; so we used 
the same schedule from which to ascertain the cost if it. 

In other respects the same plan was pursued as in the English case, exceiit that it 
was found that the cost of pig-iron, as charged in the ingot-mill, amounted to $1.46 more 
than as figured from the materials ; so we were obliged to charge that amount to the 
profits going to the pig-iron produced. The net cost of standard rails per ton as given 
in the schedule tor establishment No. 3, with which we started for this analysis, is $19.5T6» 
while as shown by this careful calculation it amounts to $19.6;35, an excess of 5.9 cents only 
by the use of other factors to supply those missingin the schedules of establishment No. 3. 

I desire to say, in forwarding you these statements, that I have made them up for 
three localities. In the completed reports I am in hopes not only to give more elaborate 



TARIFF TAXATION. 231 

ranalyses on the basis of those sent herewith, hut for certain typical establishments, those 
that larely regulate prices, I anticipate being able to trace back through all the processes 
of manufacture the various labor elements entering into the production. The difficulty 
of doing this is at once discernible on a very casual examination of facts. 

You will pardon me if I call your attention to one analj-tical feature which should be 
observed in the use of the analyses herewith forwarded. Labor-cost in 1 ton of steel rails 
—I mean after all the materials have been assembled in the steel-rail works and are ready 
to be subjected to the proper manipulations for the production of standard steel rails- 
should be less per ton relatively in this country than in Great Britain or on the continent, 
because American producers of standard steel rails dispense with at least one expensive 
process still adhered to by the foreign producer; and fxirthermore, our materials, ore, 
etc., are purer than those used in most Aher places ; so the quantity of ore, for instance, 
required for the production of a ton of standard steel rails is less in this country than in 
other places, and of course the labor required to produce one ton of steel rails is, so far as 
the purer materials are concerned, less here than abroad. 

By reference to the statements herewith submitted it will be seen that in establish- 
ment No. 1, for the northern district of the United States, 4,137 pounds of iron ore were 
necessary for the production of 1 ton of standard rails, while in establishment No. 11, 
for Great Britain, 5,127, or nearly 1,000 pounds more of iron ore were necessary for the 
production of 1 ton of the same kind of rails than in the United States, while on the conti- 
nent of Europe, in establishment No. 11, 5,701 pounds, or nearly 1,600 pounds more, of iron 
ore were necessary for the production of 1 ton of standard steel rails. Very many of 
those things which appear to be incredible when studying the total figures given disap- 
pear on a close examination of the analysis, and reasons for the figures can, as a rule, be 
found in the analysis, if properly studied. 

The establishments selected for the statements herewith forwarded are thoroughly 
representative, and are far more indicative of the true conditions surrounding the pro- 
duction of standard steel rails than any of the others given in the preliminary report 
referred to. 

Trusting that the statements herewith handed you fully answer your communication 
of the 8th, I am, very respectfully, 

CAKROLL D. WRIGHT, 

Commissioner. 
Bon. J. G. Carlisle, United States Senate. 



232 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



s? 


Ai 


•ea 




« 






d 


5^ 


s 


(^ 


^ 




Q 


^ 


■^ 






s* 


o 


Cb 


a 






tf 








1 


§ 


g 


<D 


^^ 


o 


^ 


w 


5v 


^ 


1 

CO 


« 


V 


;:J 


sS 


o 


^ 


^ 


1 


g 


-J. 


Q 


•s 


1 


09 


,Q 










§ 


^ 


^ 


§ 


•s 


m 






^ 


^ 


5g 


fl 


5* 




^ 


5 




















o 



) t- ko t- CO cj ■* 



N r-l T-l 



O ;LHr-<4aX2 S 2 1=3 ^ s2 

S o s3 02^ 5 ?2 n o s 









o ^ 



"2 W2® L* 



5?s 



g 8 8 






^12 



!S S § 






tJ en 



s°§SHSS;i 



g'cS'dciS.S'a 
?^ 2 f^. g '^ Scs S °s 



«2 ee il y 



,^g;2co"S-,o3Mtc-g-HbD 

^■5^_osBg'd|ftg.s 



en . -H 
t^ W 5 



k 4) 



O w 



oB' 



3^ 



^a 



at^-®§o 



4-5 +3 +3 M CO 

o o o sli tH 
-d-dd > >• w > ■ 









O 



— ^ 

: o 

'B 

: be 

:.a 
:^ 



• d 

to rj 
g« 

t>o 
O tn 
P-d 



opocJCdfla-j ® cxj-jcgd-^® 
ftftftooso-dS^^J^S^.Oo^sCo 

OOOOOP<0«3oOt!COMOwoP<Ow 

^Pih;^!^^ Pm ^ ^ fi^ ^ ^ 



fi : 









w so 



-d 
a 

% 

a 

(N 55 (Si 

8g 



^§ 

d 

0) 



TARIFF TAXATION. 233 



Statement showing the proportion of cost attributable to direct labor in the production of one ton 

of steel rails. 

Total cost of ore, limestone, and coke (coal included) for 2,912 pounds of pig-iron. . . $11,401 
Oostof direct labor in production of ore, limestone, and coke (coal included) for 

2,912 pounds of pig iron. . . . . . . . .,. • • $3,546 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor m production of ore, limestone, and coke (coal 

included) for 2,912 pounds of pig iron..... 31 

Total cost of converting the above materials and 341 pounds of cmder, scrap, etc., 

into 2,912 pounds of pig iron. . . . ••.•••.••• $1,573 

Cost of direct labor in converting the above materials and 841 pounds of cinder, 

scrap, etc., into 2,912 pounds of pig-iron $0,784 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor in convertmg the above materials and 341 pounds 

of cinder, scrap, etc., into 3,912 pounds of pig iron 50 

Total cost of converting the above pig-iron and 383 pounds of scrap and spiegeleisen 

into 2,798 pounds of steel ingots $2,106 

Cost of direct labor in converting the above pig-iron and 383 pounds of scrap and 

spiegeleisen into 2,798 pounds of steel ingots $0,981 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor in converting the above pig-iron and 88S poimds of 

scrap and spiegeleisen into 2,798 pounds of steel ingots 47 

Total cost of converting the above steel ingots into 2,700 pounds of steel blooms .... $1,437 
Cost of direct labor In converting the above steel ingots into 2,700 pounds of steel 

blooms $0,845 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor in converting the above steel ingots into8.700poimds 

of steel blooms 59 

Total cost of converting the above steel blooms into 1 ton (2,240 pounds) of steel rails $2,151 
Oost of direct labor in converting the above steel blooms into 1 ton (2,240 pounds) 

of steel rails $1,661 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor in converting the above steel blooms into 1 tc»i 

(3,240 pounds) of steel rails 77 

Total net cost of above ore, limestone, coke (coal included), cinder, scrap, and 

spiegeleisen, and of converting them into 1 ton (2,240 pounds of steel rails $18.6i4 

Cost of direct labor fn the production of ore, limestone, and coke (coal included), 

and in converting them and the cinder, scrap, and spiegeleisen into 1 ton (2,240 

pounds) of steel rails $7,817 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor in the production of ore, limestone, and coke (coal 

included), and In converting them and the cinder, scrap, and spiegeleisen into 

1 ton (2;240 pounds) of steel rails , 42 



SO 



2,34 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 




S W U5 



I 
^ 



-§ 






00 tH 



O fn 71 



:2 '^ 



V) 



o • • • S 



N ?0 05 



>i— IU5t- a r-t 



gsss g ;5 i s s 



s^ss ^ ^ I § 8 2 ^ 

OSi-iCOiO (M i« «0 01 r-i O Ol 




O O O U, !h 

S S 3 a> <y 
"O'O'O > > 
O O O fl fl 

^H fc< sh o o 

P,P.P.o o 

Vl U t4 tH t^ 

o o o o o 



TARIFF TAXATION. 235 

Statement showing the proportion of cost attributable to direct labor in tlie production of 

one ton of steel rails. 

Total cost of ore, limestone, and coke (coal Included) for 3,061 pounds of pig-iron. . $13,195 
Cost of direct labor in production of ore, limestone, and coke (coal included) for 

3,061 pomids of pig-ii-on $4,047 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor in production of ore, limestone, and coke (coal in- 
cluded) for 3,061 pounds of pig-iron 31 

Tot xl cost of converting the above materials into 3061 pounds of pig-iron $3,124 

Cost of direct labor in converting the above materials into 3,061 pounds ofpig-iron $1,246 
Per cent, of cost of direct labor in converting the above materials into 3,061 pounds 

of pig-iron 40 

Total cost of converting the above pig-iron into 2,613 pounds of steel ingots $2.3«9 

Per cent of cost of direct labor in converting the above pig-iron into 2,612 pounds 

of steel ingots • • • • $1,161 

Total cost of converting the above steel Ingots into 2,580 pounds of steel blocnns 49 

Cost of direct labor in converting the above steel ingots Into 2,580 pounds of steel 

blooms • $0,792 

Per cent of cost of direct labor in converting the above steel ingots into 2,580 pounds 

steel blooms $0,383 

Total cost of converting the above steel blooms into one ton (2,240 pounds) steel 

rails 48 

Cost of direct labor in converting the above steel blooms into one ton (2,240 pounds) 

of steel rails $1,267 

Per cent, of cost of direct labor in converting the above steel blooms into one ton 

(2,240 pounds) of steel rails 70 

Total net cost of above ore, limestone, and coke (coal included) and of converting 

them into one ton (2,240 pounds) of steel rails $19,635 

Cost of direct labor in the production of the above ore, limestone, and coke (coal 

included) and in converting them into one ton (2,240 pounds) of steel rails $8,104 

Per cent, of direct labor in the production of the above ore, limestone, and coke 

(coal included) and in converting them into one ton (2,240 pounds) of steel rails 41 

Before the letter to Senator Carlisle was printed, Senator McPherson said» 
speaking of the letter to Senator Edmonds, and the Commissioner's preliminary 
report : 

" I desire to call attention to what is known as Miscellaneous Document No. 
198, presented yesterday by the Senator from Vermont. The purpose of this com- 
munication of the Commissioner of Labor to the honorable Senator from Vermont 
evidently was to arrive at the labor-cost in the production of a ton of steel rails in. 
the United States. You will find in this document language to which I shall allude. 
The writer also presents a table to which I will refer later. In the table which he 
presents he says : 

" This table has been worked out by using averages based on six establishments in the 
northern districts of the United States, producing material suitable for rails, as exhibited 
in the preliminary report. The result would not differ materially if any other six were 
used. " 

" We must assume, therefore, that the six establishments that he has selected 
Are representative establishments. Now, Sir, turn to page 3, and you will find a 
comparative statement in which he gives the labor-cost of production and other 
costs for the production of 4,137 pounds of iron ore, which I assume is the amount 
of iron ore in this particular test that makes a ton of steel rails. He follows that 
w^ith a certain number of pounds of limestone and goes through all of the grades of 
manufacture from a ton of ore to a ton of steel rails. He assumes the cost of a ton 
of steel rails to be $25,777. From this statement it appears that the expenditures 
for direct labor were $11.5983. 

" I assume that the Senator from Vermont desired this statement in order that 
he might be able to show some excuse for imposing a duty of $11.20 protection upon 
a ton of steel rails. Now, I do not know that there has been any contention upon 
this side of the Chamber in opposition to such a statement as this. The contention 
has been that labor in the United States in the production of a ton of steel rails was 
not greatly in excess of the labor-cost in Europe for the production of steel railft 



236 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



there ; and, as the Republican party claim that the tariff is for the purpose of pro- 
tecting American labor, I want to show how fallacious it is, and therefore I 
have examined the subject, and I wish to say that the statement I have prepared is 
taken from the statements you will find in preliminary report of the Commissioner 
of Labor, and if you will look in that report you will find a verification of every 
one of my figures. 

" I will take up first, Mr. President, the cost of the manufacture of steel rails 
on the continent of Europe, and Great Britain as well, and as I follow the report 
I include Great Britain. 

" According to the Acting Commissioner of Labor, as per Senate Miscellaneous 
Document No. 198, page 3, the total cost of producing 1 ton of steel rails in the 
United States — labor, supplies, repairs, transportation, taxes, salaries of officials as 
well as clerks, in fact, everything included — amounts to $25,777 per ton of 2,240 
pounds. In the preliminary report of the Commissioner of Labor on the cost of 
production of steel rails in various establishments on the continent of Europe and 
Great Britain, House Miscellaneous Document No. 222, pages 34 and 35, the total 
cost of producing 1 ton of steel rails is given, namely : 

Total cost, including everything same as in the United States. 



Mm. 


Per ton of 
2,240 pounds. 


Mill. 


Per ton of 
2,240 pounds. 


No 3 


$19,576 

22.184 
25.652 
23.121 
23.190 


No. 8 


$23,743 

27 025 


No 4. 


No 9 


No.5 


No. 10 


21 907 


No 6 


No. 11 


18 588 


No. 7 











** These, I presume, are representative mills or establishments in Europe, be- 
cause that is what the report states them to be. 

'* From the above it will be seen that the cost of production of steel rails in: 
Europe varies all the way from $18,588 to $27,025 per ton. Kow we will come 
down to the comparative statement — 

Compiled from the preliminary report of the Commissioner of Labor, House Miscel- 
laneous Document No. 222, and compared with the report, Senate Miscellaneous Document 
No. 198. Materials and successive stages of conversion— 



" Now, I take up the " materials and successive stages of conversion," the same 
as is done in Miscellaneous Document No. 198, the same amount of material 
exactly. 

*' For production of 4,137 pounds of iron ore the United States report is given, 
by the Commissioner as $2.1423. 

" If any Senator has that report before him he can compare the other state- 
ment now taken from the document of the Commissioner of Labor as to the cost 
in Europe at representative mines, not confined to six mines, but to every mine,, 
and the average of all the European mines both on the continent of Europe and in. 
Great Britain. 

" The cost in Europe is $2.1884 " 

Mr. Edmunds. " In what page of the preliminary report does the Senator 
find that ?" 

Mr. McPhekson. " If the Senator will turn to page 35 he will find in the last 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



237 



table on tliat page a statement of eleven mines. The first two are mines in the 
northern district of the United States. From No. 3 down to No. 11 are mines on 
the continent of Europe and in Great Britain, and a reference to the table at the 
top of page 84 will show it." 

" For production of a certain -number of pounds of limestone, the Commis- 
sioner's report puts the cost in the United States, $20.51 ; in Europe, $29.04. 

" For production of a certain number of pounds of bituminous coal, $1.9728 for 
the same in Europe ; $1.8583 in the United States, and so on. 

" Now, what is the total ? The total as made up by the Commissioner of Labor, 
in Miscellaneous Document No. 198, gives $11.5983 as the labor-cost in making a 
ton of steel rails in the United States. From the same authority and from the same 
statement, the direct labor-cost in Europe of making a ton of steel rails is $11.3212. 
Expenditure for direct labor in the production of 1 ton steel rails — United States, 
$11.5983 ; in Europe, $11.3212. 

"Excess in expenditures for direct labor in United States, 27.71 cents in making 
a ton of steel rails, taking every particle, every single stage of manufacture, from 
the same authority. Therefore, instead of saying that labor in the United States 
receives 100 per cent, more than labor receives in Great Britain or on the conti- 
nent of Europe for like service in the manufacture of a like product, the JCommis- 
sioner of Labor simply denies it in toto in his report. 

" Mr. President, I desire to put this table in the Record" 

Compiled from tlie preliminarg report of the Commissioner of Labor ^ H. R. MisceUa- 
neous Document 2^o. 222, and compared with the report^ Senate Miscellaneous Docu- 
ment No. 198. 

MATERIALS AND SUCCESSIVE STAGES OF CONVERSION. 



Expenditures for direct labor. 



For production of 4,137 pounds of iron ore. 

For production of 1,497 pounds of limestone 

For production of 4,808 pounds of bituminous coal 

For conversion of above coal into 3,083 pounds of coke 

For conversion of above ore, limestone and coke into 2,669 pounds 
of pig-iron 

For conversion of above pig-iron into 2,488 pounds of steel ingots. 

For fuel (1.11 tons bitumtaous coal) for conversion of above pig- 
iron into 2,488 pounds of steel ingots 

For conversion of above steel ingots into 1 ton (2,240 pounds) of 
Steel rails 

For fuel (1.17 tons bituminous coal) for conversion of abo"^e steel 
ingots into 1 ton (2,240 pounds) of steel rails 

Total .* 



Misc. Doc. 

S. 198, 

United 

States. 



$11.5983 



Misc. Doc. 
H. R. 222, 
Europe. 



$2.1433 
.2051 

2.9728 
.5983 


$2.1884 

.2904 

1.8583 

.5116 


1.5763 
1.6894 


.9876 
1.2440 


.9124 


.8504 


1.5400 


2.4860 


.9617 


.9045 



$11.3212 



RECAPITULATION. 

s 
Expenditure for direct labor in the production of 1 ton steel rails : 

United States $11.5983 

Europe 11 . 3212 

Difference .2771 

Excess in expenditures for direct labor in United States 27.71 cents. 



238 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Subsequently Senator McPherson said : 

" I should like to call the attention of the Senator from Rhode Island, while 
this subject is under consideration, to one fact in this estimate given to us by the 
Commissioner of Labor, if the Senator will turn to page 35 of the report he will 
find that the Commissioner of Labor takes a small establishment, the smaller of the 
two establishments in the northern district of New York in which the labor-cost of 
manufacturing a ton of steel rails was $1.54 compared with the labor-cost of $1.38 
In the other establishment given. That, of course, made the direct labor-cost of 
steel rails higher in the United States than it really was because he took the 
highest-priced establishment. That is establishment No. 3. Now, follow down 
the list and you find in the first establishment he took on the continent of Europe 
the labor-cost was $1.04 a ton ; take No. 4, and the labor-cost is $2.51 ; in No. 5 it is 
$4.64, in No. 6 it is $2.58, in No. 7 it is $2.68, in No. 8 it is $2.97, and in No. 9 it is 
$2.01 , but in order to arrive at the labor-cost on the continent of Europe he took 
an establishment which gave a labor-cost of $1.04. Was that a fair way of arriving 
at the average labor-cost in the two countries ? 

"Then we come to Great Britain. There are two establishments given in 
Great Britain, in which the labor-cost of one was $2.54 a ton and in the other it 
was $1.36 a ton. In order, seemingly, to make it appear that the labor-cost in 
Great Britain was very much lower than here, in his computation he took the 
establishment that gave a labor-cost of $1.36 per ton." 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



2:39 



Thereafter Senator Gray had this table compiled by the expert named : 





fe' 


1 


OP?? 


1 




V. 


^§ 




0) tD 


"g 


rt- 


.^ 


s 




1 


's 


1 




^s 


^H 


« 


S 9! 


1 


<0 3 


b 


B ^ 




O =3 


►«S 


C^ 


•S 


sl 


00 


ii^S 




S <D 


tg 


(6 v> 


%» 


-^3 


!>«» 


©O 


?§ 


^w 


vi 




*« 






Si 


^c^ 


3^ 




►Jq 














§ 


«,^ 


1 


S>1 




■;;;'2 


s;^ 


X73 


^ 


sa 


►sS 


■** 


ifi 


5S 




oo 


^ 


«o 


r3 


r?§ 


^ 




■;» 


fe^ 


§ 


£^ 


a 




V 


'^ o 


e 


ao 



-;s a« 



i 
I 

o 



o^ 






•2 ® &(» 



153 »« 00 u; Q -* 

?l I i i I i 



s 3 

s s 



Siii g § i i 



S S S 

§ 53 ^ 



1^ 



S5 S S 
8 S S 



g I g ^ 

(M CO O t- 






OS I N 






s 



: :6S 

• eSO^ 

: o<t.j S 

: ooo 

|||§§ 
o-gg ft© 

aSpQco M 

O O O-g B 
w CO to 5 s 

S S S O o 
(-1 /-> (-1 fi ^ 



"O . o •'-^ 
o : o^-^ 



0000 

ftftft 



SMll 



00 00 o 



> : 

O CO 



S5 

uo 
o a 



So 
2fl 



4i+3 4i W M 

O O O •„ U 

3 s s a> o) 
•CO -a > > 
o o o c c 
fe fc 5: 00 

:.. b >.. Uc 

00000 



o > p— "> w*^ a 



W O W O ^ O f^O M 
P^ (i=i (JH Ph 



© ft 

gw 
.S3 

.S« 

xo« 

a-d 

?3C 



to o 

CIS 

ceX2 ft 



1 


2 


n 


VJ 


® 


^ 


fl 
a 


1 






CO 


Q 


;^ 


^ 










ft 




w 


■s 


Jh 


rrT 





» 


p 




3 


d 









43 


u 


fl 


0) 




d 


g 





s 


•S3 


s+^ 


a 
a 


S3 © 





0+^ 


u 


®C8 




.s © 


^ 


+* 


■3>; 









^5 






(V 


03 ft 


^ 


c© 


>J 


r^« 




^ >• 


eg 


S 


a 


•^^ 


a 


^hCS 


0© 


s 


•^n 






ui 


J 


ft 


■S 




«-i 


<^ 


0^ 


xi 


t-o 




©.in 









si 


cj 




ft 


« 










0) 


^5 


ft 


w 


s^ 




00 


^ 


<<0 




®-e 


a 


4^ 3 


r-l 


>w a 


rt 


0© 


t< 




© 


0+3 


© 


si 


CO 




IS 


■M 


CJS 









^p 


^ 


fc^ 


,_! 


©^ 





■5X3 


M^ 


111' 


!2;^<c: 


* c-^jS 


5 cr 



240 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Relative to this Senator Gray said : 

" Therefore we have, to condense what I have just said, this remarkable state- 
ment, that according to the Commissioner of Labor, Mr. Carroll D. Wright, labor 
receives in the United States $11.59 to produce a ton of steel rails, and according 
to the same report of this same commissioner the average cost of production for 
labor in nine mills in Europe, including the continent and Great Britain, is $11.40 
per ton. Hence in the United States the cost of labor is $11.59 and in nine mills on 
the continent and in Great Britain it is $11.40. The difference in favor of the 
foreign-produced article, one ton of steel rails, is only 19 cents. 

" And yet to cover that difference we have now a tax in the House bill of $13.44, 
and in the Senate reduced by an amendment to this bill to $11.20, but raised by this 
committee of conference back to the House rate of $13.44." 

This elaboration of the subject of the duty on steel rails is due to the fact that 
this duty is typical of all tariff taxes and is referred to by the protectionists as an 
exemplar, and the foregoing so completely explodes the falsehood upon which the 
people are taxed for the benefit of a few persons, that no one who reads it can even 
have the slightest excuse for believing that the tariff is to protect labor. 

The Bessemer steel men have bought up at great expense all competing patents 
and are holding them up while operating the Bessemer process. They were but 
recently discussing the question of how best to dispose of $10,000,000 they had in 
their treasury without attracting attention. They had declared large dividends and 
were fearful of the consequences should the public learn what profits they were 
making. Information as to what, if any, disposition they made of the fund is not 
at hand. 

Iron and steel generally. Messrs David A. "Wells and Edward Atkinson, two 
gentlemen who are too well-known to require anybody's support of t^jeir state- 
ments, have made some calculation as to the tribute the American people have 
paid to the iron masters. 

Mr. Wells', " Economic Changes," taking the figures given out by the Iron 
and Steel Association of Philadelphia, covering the ten years from 1878 to 
1887, inclusive, shows that the consumption of iron and steel averaged 6,000,000 net 
tons per annum. The average price of anthracite pig iron in Philadelphia was 
$21.87; the price of " Scotch" pig in England was $12.94, which, allowing amply 
for freights, would make about $15 in this country. The average difference was 
about $7. 

The average price of best rolled iron in Philadelphia was $50.30 per gross ton; 
in England the corresponding iron was $35.48, a difference of over $14 ; but, taking 
the lowest difference — $7 — it then appears that the consumers here paid on 60,000,- 
000 tons in ten years $420,000,000 more than the English consumers paid ; or, more 
accurately, more than a like quantity would have cost, taking the English price 
plus the freight. 

The aggregate consumption of steel was 20,000,000 tons. Taking then the low- 
est form of steel — the rails — the average American price was $44; the average 
English price $30.00. The increased cost to Americans was $280,000,000 ; but, de- 
ducting $7 per ton from the iron used in making these rails, the difference is 
$140,000,000. The excess of price on iron and steel was then $560,000,000 for ten 
years, or $56,000,000 per year. 

On the same basis of calculation the difference in 1887, when we consumed 
9,270,000 tons, was $80,000,000. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 241 

The capital invested in the iron industry, including iron and coal mines and 
the manufacture of coke, was in 1880 about $341,000,000. 

The bounty paid by us was, then, about 65 per cent, more than the whole 
capital invested, and as the iron manufacturers pay smaller wages than are paid in 
outside industries, there is no possibility that labor got a share of the bounty. 

Mr. Atkinson's " Industrial Progress " taking the figures given by the Statistical 
Abstract, a Government publication, makes the additional cost from $60,000,000 to 
$70,000,000 per year. 

As it will be seen that Mr. Wells has been very liberal in his calculation, his 
conclusions may be accepted without fear of any successful charge of exaggeration. 

Iron and steel afford advantages for calculations not afforded by woolen 
goods and many other articles, by reason of the fact that the great number of 
items in other things renders it difficult to compute the aggregate increase, and 
for the further reason that the iron and steel men themselves furnish the figures, 
"Which they cannot dispute. They all show, however, substantially the same result. 

There are about ninety tons of steel rails used to the mile of railroad and the 
rails last about ten years. It is easy, therefore, to compute the extra cost of our 
roads by reason of the tariff. Poor's Manual, and many other authorities, give 
the number of miles built, and any one may compute the cost for himself. The 
•cost of railroads becomes fixed capital, and must be made the basis of dividends 
and earnings. The people pay freight in proportion to this cost. That is where 
the corn and wheat crops go. 

Woolen Goods. — There is no schedule in the tariff law that is of deeper concern 
to the people than the one relating to woolen goods. Everybody must, in our 
climate, wear woolens. They are absolutely necessary to the preservation of the 
health and comfort of our whole population. 

Here is an epitome of spoliation : 



242 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 






C3 fc* 








t3.ti 


g 




s 


If 


o 


i 


fl o 




O fH 


fH 




;?; 


o o 


^ 


J> '^ 


p=! 


02 7! 


^ 


^Tn 








« 


«^. 




o 


■S o 




rt g. 
















■73 ta 




IS 
















o o 




t^ d, 




l^& 








O *^ 


■So 


1—^ »• 


r: ex 




IH 


ee »-| 


^ c« 




he 







> 




o 






o 




a) 


xj 


H 



:$ S 



"O "O "O "O >, 



Art 
o o 

ftp, 



03^ «^ Oj O M O M u "^ S o • 
sirjT^ 0_ « " =3^^ c3 " 03 ^ es t>c5 

SSSS 8 S 5 5 g <1 



43 4^4^4^4^ 

flfl fl fl d 

cj a) ijj aj a) 

o « o o o 

(h t^ t< ki ;^ 

©©©(DO 



« fl d 

© © © 

© o o 

;-i ^1 ;h 

© © © 



NrHr-lrH rt 



43 43 

dd 
© © 
© © 

© © 



dddgg,© 

© © © o ft© 
© © © ^ 



dr^£3^d 



M _ M g M y W 5 

©dai(D©©a>© 
ftg ftftftftftp, 

: ©• 



p,p,ftftgagSo§cSfl©§ 
^ U ^ 






434343+343 

d d d d fl 
© © © © © 
© © © © © 

© © © © © 

P4P<P|P.P4 
3^ t- t- 00 CO 



434343 

ddd 
© © © 
© © © 

U t-iU 

© © © 



4343 

dd 
© © 
© © 

© © 



- - ^4^ 
434343^ 






© © © CO 053 

oS©4>d©d§ 
ftp,o.agagS 

5S!S5 5 g 



-d -o -d 



© ft 



. . . :^ 

43 43 43 43 £; 

dddd*: 
© © © © © 

© © © © bJD 
in ;h ^H Vr * 



ddd 
© © © 
o © © 
;-i ;h ^4 
© © © 
ftftft 



S^^^< JSSJS 



4343 

dd 
© © 
© © 

© © 
ftft 



^ S : 

-d -d >> 
d d 

2 .2 ^ 
43^ 



^^sssss 



d d d 11^ o <i* o > 
© © © 5 fto a' 
©©© w Mi2 

feg^©d©dg 
ftftftftgftgS 



© ft 



4343434343 434343 

ddddd ddd 

©©©©o ©©© 

©©©©© o©© 

©©©©© ©©© 

ftftftftft ftftft 

TOcocoSco «ccS 



© C5 C5 ■*-*l-^-<*l -^ -H^ -* 
. i-lr-< 5^0<tC<lC^ (M S^ (M 



C^ W r-l MNO^Nr-l (M CM W 



f_, »C»C iCvOlCiO 



ii?j ^^ :)?j :5?j i^ :^:)^:)^ 

t- i- t- t- >n t- koutiioioic t-t-t- 



bJD • • be ■ 



^ 



rrt ^ • "dd 



p>> 



03 a) • 05 08 ?' 

>,43 : >,>,3 

© g : © © d 

-d .az : S «3 00 

03 en M • M w O 

££«C^ddd© 
■e t; © o ? © © > 



wi3 o;=i4:: o o V 

6c CI © OS fl © o ? 

52 o 3^' ^f o aJ © © 



a b 



© 




tc 


> 


ft 




d 


^n 


cri 




© 



.3 


© 




d 


43 

© 
> 


z 

^ 


d 
© 




(. 






> 


? 


03 


m 


>> 


y 


% 


d 





' 03 05 03 ^ w « « 






;;?cri75a)M rtMWM 

^OOOOflgoOO 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



243 



This explains itself: 

Statement of the amount and percentage of duty on worsted and woolen goods for 
men's wear as now assessed under tariff of 1883 and tlie Dingley resolution of Map 
9, 1890, compared with amount and percentage of duty on same class of good' as 
jv'ovided in McKinley tariff bill now pending in tlie United States Senate : 

[Note,— These calculations are based on goods weighing IK pounds per yard, 56 inoires 
wide. Present duty from T7 to 124 per cent ; average, 100^ per cent. Proposed duty from 
9t) to 162 per cent.; average, 129 per cent.] 

One and one-fourth pounds per yard is the average weight of fall and winter suitings. 

One pound per yard in the average weight of spring and summer suitings. 

One and three-fourth pounds per yard is the average weight of winter over-coatings. 





Amount of duty per yard and percentages 


Increased by proposed 




of same on foreign cost. 


new law. 




Under present law. 


Under proposed law. 






Foreign cost 










U M+3 


>> 


U M4= 


>% 


I 

p< 


per yard 

United States 

money. 




+3 . 

■Co 

0(3 fli 


duty 50 pe 
,nd 44 cent 
und. Am' 
rd. 


11 


Off 




. .oSOcS 


+2 u 


- . C8 O ei 


•St; 


•S-P 




ateol 
cent, 
per p 
pery 


52 
is 


ate ol 
cent, 
perp 
pery 




1 


go 




« 


^ 


M 


Ah 


^ 


(^ 


Cents. 


Cents. 


Per cent. 


Cents. 


Per cent. 


Cents. 


Per cent. 


49 


61 


124 


79>^ 


162 


18K 


38 


50 


Ql>i 


123 


80 


160 


18X 


37 


51 


62 


122 


80>^ 


158 


18^ 


36 


52 


62 


120 


81 


156 


19 


36^ 


53 


62>^ 


118 


81X 


154 


19 


36 


54 


63 


117 


82 


153 


19 


35 


55 


63 


115 


82 >^ 


150 


19X 


35)^ 


56 


63^ 


114 


83 


148 


19>i 


35 


57 


64 


112 


^K 


146 


19K 


34 


58 


64 


110 


84 


145 


20 


34;^^ 


59 


64X 


109 


84>^ 


143 


20 


34 


60 


65 


108 


85 


141 


20 


33 


61 


65 


107 


85>^ 


140 


20>^ 


33>^ 


62 


65>^ 


106 


86 


139 


m>i 


33 


63 


66 


105 


^H 


137 


20 j^ 


32^ 


64 


66>^ 


104 


87 


136 


20>^ 


33 


65 


67 


103 


87X 


135 


20>i 


31 >^ 


66 


67 


101 


88 


133 


21 


32 


67 


m^ 


100 


88>^ 


1^ 


21 


31^ 


68 


67>j^ 


99 


89 


131 


2VA 


31;!^ 


69 


68 


98 


mK 


130 


21^ 


31 


70 


68>^ j 98 


90 


129 


2\^ 


30)i 


71 


69 i 97 


90>i 


127 


21>i 


30 


72 


69 96 


91 


126 


22 


30)tf 


73 


69>^ . 95 


91^ 


125 


22 


30 


74 


70 95 


92 


124 


22 


30 


75 


70 


93 


92>^ 


123 


22>^ 


30 


76 


70>i 


93 


93 


122 


• 22i^ 


29>^ 


77 


70>^ 


92 


93^ 


121 


23 


30 


78 


71 


91 


94 


120 


23 


29jtf 


79 


IIX 


90>i 


94;^ 


120 


23 


29 


80 


72 


90 


95 


,19 


23 


29 


120 


*92 


77 


115 


96 


23 


19 



* Forty per cent, and 35 cents per pound. 

The foregoing tables are from the speech of Senator Gray, as is this extract : 

There are about 65,000,000 people in the United States, men women and children, and 
about 44,000,060 sheep, which is about two-thirds of a sheep to each individual. 

These sheep produce about 268,000,000 pounds of unwashed wool according to the most 
recent statistics we have, which is about 4.4 of a pound of wool to each individual; 



244: DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

whereas, as a matter of fact, each individual uses 10 pounds of wool in his woolen cloth- 
ing, his carpets, and other manufactures of wool necessary for the use of the people. 

So we have this state of the case, that 1 in 65, that is 1,000,000 out of 65,000,000 of people,, 
produce wool, and they produce 4.4 pounds of wool to each individual of the 65,000,000, whO' 
consumes 10 pounds, and every single individual in the United States— speaking now of 
averages— is compelled to pay a higher price upon 10 pounds of wool included in his- 
clothing and carpets and other articles in order to get some sort of benefit from 4.4^ 
pounds of wool in this country, and that is given to 1,000,000 people to the exclusion of 
all others. 

That is what the application of the rules of arithmetic show in regard to this matter ; 
and therefore we are perfectly justified in saying that when the charge is to be imposed 
upon all the people it is for the benefit of only a part of the people engaged in a particu- 
lar industry, and even those people are not all engaged exclusively in that industry by 
any means, for if you take even the State of Ohio you will find that the total value of all the 
wool produced in that great wool-growing State is only about 4 per cent, of the values of 
its whole agricultural products, and all the people of Ohio and all the people of the United 
States are to be taxed upon their clothing and their carpets and their woolen goods of all 
kinds to protect 4 per cent, of the agricultural products of that State. 

Of course the duties on woolens are to " protect labor." Here is a statement, 
with tables from the speech of Senator McPherson. 

Cost of ^eonverting 1600 pounds into 835 >^ yards of worsted cloth of 1 pound i/ii weight to 

the square yard. 

RESULT. 

One thousand six hundred pounds of raw Australian wool, costing 43 cents per pound, 
after having been scoured, produced 914 pounds of tops. 

These tops were spun into 2-40's yarn, and produced 857 pounds of yarn at a cost of 
80.28 cents per pound, equal to $688. 

RECAPITULATION. 

One thousand six hundred pounds of raw wool at 43 cents per pound equals $688, 
reduced by scouring to 914 pounds ; hence actual cost of said 914 pounds of tops equals 
$75.27 cents per pound. These 914 pounds of tops being turned into yarns produced a 
shrinkage of 57 pounds of hard and soft waste, and the 857 pounds of yarns cost 80.28 cents 
per pound, which are equal to $688. 

Actual cost of 857 pounds of yarn, at 80.28 cents per pound, equals $688. These 857 
pounds of yarns in being made ready for the beams suffered a loss by shrinkage of 2}i 
per cent., and the 835)^ pounds added that additional cost to it, and the pound of yarns, 
became 82.35 cents per pound, equal to $688. 

PAY TO LABOR. 

Labor for scouring, combing, spinning, and producing 857 pounds of yam at 16 

cents per pound $137 13 

Labor for getting the reduced 857 pounds of yarn into 835."^ pounds ready for the 

beams, at 2)i cents per pound 20 68; 

Labor for weaving the 835 >^ pounds, at 2)6 cents per pound 20 68 

Dyeing and finishing 835 >^ pounds, at 10 cents per pound 83 55 

Total to labor $262 43; 

ANALYSIS. 

Cost Of 835)^ pounds Of yarn, at 83.35 cents per pound $688 00' 

Less for 156 pounds of hard and soft waste, which sold at 40 cents per pound 62 40 

Net cost $625 60 

Paid to labor 262 43 

Total cost, labor included $888 03 

The result from this investment of $888.03 is the production of &35)^ square yards of 
cloth weighing 16 ounces, or 1 pound, to the square yard, equal to $1,063 per pound, or 
square yard 

These 8;}5>^ vards sold to the .lobbeif at $1.50 per square yard, realizing $1,253.25. Net 
profit, $365.22, equal to 41 per cent. These were all worsted, with no backing or admix- 
ture of fibre of any kind. 

" The labor-cost in this particular manufacture corresponds nearly with the 
labor-cost as is given by Mr. Waldin, the commissioner of labor in the State of 
Massachusetts for the manufacture of this kind of goods. He gives it at 29.5 per 
cent, of the total cost of product. 

Labor, $262.43 to cost of production of $888.03, equal to 29.5 per cent. 
Net profit of $365.22 on $888.03 Investment, equal to 41 per cent. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



245 



REMARKS. 

Paragraph 374 gives the value of cloth imported at from 24.3 cent? per square yard of 
1 pound weight to 26 1-5 cents per square yard of 1 pound weight. Ac there is no woolen 
or vorsted cloth at anv such low figure as 24.3 cents and 26 1-5 cents per square yard of 1 
pound weight, goods of this kind imported were composed of shoddy and cotton; more 
cotton tnan shoddy, and the duty of 33 cents per pound and 40 per cent, ad valorem is 
gi"en in the comparative statement, page 89, as 146.99 per cent, and 175.65 per cent, pro- 
vided it was wool. But as these goods contained more cotton than shoddy, and which, 
as worth in Europe 16 cents per pound, hence the proposed duty ot 33 cents per pound is 
over 200 per cent., and adding to it the 40 per cent, ad valorem, makes it 240 per cent ad 
valorem, and not either 146.99 per cent, or 175.65 per cent. 

" Then he gives another result of six months' working in first-class worsted 
factories He gives here both foreign and domestic wool used. The total number 
of pounds is 1,474,536. He gives the result of that. He then takes the result again 
for six months following, of 1,807,040 pounds, and he brings it down to a result 
giving you the cost of the yarn. He does not carry this test beyond the yarn itself, 
but he give the value of the wool, of the combed wool, of the noils, of the tops of 
the card waste, of the burrs, the shrinkage, everything He takes every single item, 
of expense, and what is the result ? He makes out that a pound of worsted cloth,, 
of this fine cloth, does not require to manufacture more than 2 pounds of wool.. 
This is a verification of the statement made by the Senator from Kentucky upom 
the authority for Mr. McKeever, as I understood him to say, from New York. 



Result of six months' working in a first-class worsted factory. Foreign and domestic^ 

wool mixed. 
Total, 1,474,536 pounds. 





Pounds. 


Per cent. 


Tops 


I,137,a50 
157,783 
179,403 


77.13 


Noils 


10.70 


Shrinkage 


12.17 






Total 


1,474,536 


100.00 






Result of the second six months' working. 
Total, 1,807,040 pounds. 




Pounds. 


Per cent. 




1,306,670 
195,830 
304,540 


72.31 


Noils 


10.84 




16.85 






Total 


1,807,040 


100.00 







Total, 3,281,576 pounds. 



Result of whole year working. 

RESULT. 





Pounds. 


Per cent. 


Tops 


2,440,020 
353,613 
483,943 


74.48 


Noils 


10.77 




14 75 






Total 


3,281,676 


100 00 







Pennsylvania, Ohio and Australian wools. (2-48's yarns). 

Wool, 25,050 pounds; tops, 12,9&5 pounds; noils, 2,787 pounds; card waste, 547 pounds; 
burrs, 131 pounds: shrinkage, 8,600 pounds. 



246 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Tops 

Noils* 

Card wastet. 

Burrst 

Slirinkage§ . . 



Total. 



Pounds. Per cent. 



25,050 



12,985 


57.84 


3,78T 


11.13 


547 


03.18 


131 


00.53 


8,600 


34.33 



100.00 



* Are worth 40 cents per pound. 
t Is worth 16 cents per pound. 



t Are worth 4 cetfts per pound. 
§ Total loss. 



"Labor to produce tops, 6 cents per pound, or $779.10 for the lot. 

" The wool originally cost 34 cents per pound ; after paying for labor and scour- 
ing, its cost was 79.3 cents per pound ; adding 8 cents for spinning per pound and 
the 10 per cent, of shrinkage to make it into yarn, the net cost was 87.3 cents per 
pound. This yarn sold at $1.05 per pound, leaving a net profit of 14.7 cents per 
pound, or 16.8 per cent. 

Senator McPherson continues : 

" Consul Schoenhof in his report to the State Department from Tunstal, August 
28, 1886 (page 208), speaking of the comparative labor cost in the manufacture of 
cotton goods between old England and New England, writes as follows : 

" I set alongside the price-list for the Grinnell Wamsuttas, No. 5 and 6, at Fall 
River as in force in March of this year, and the prices actually paid in Lanca- 
shire for the same numbers of yarn. I take only such numbers out of the list as 
come here under review — comparative prices actually paid for spinning cotton 
yarn in Massachusetts and Lancashire. 



Tarn. 


Lancashire. 


Massachusetts. 


No 18 




$ 0.53 

.50 

.61 

.73 3-5 
1.00 
1.12 
1.35 


1 


0.40 


No. 30 


.45 


No 38 ■ 


.64 


No 33 




73 


No. 40 




.98 


No 46 


1.14 


No. 50 


1.39 







What is true of spinning- 
Says the same authority — 

Is also true of weaving, and the fact is fairly well authenticated that, measured by the 
piece or pound price, our labor in cotton spinning and cotton manufacturing is fully as 
cheap as British labor, while its earnings are on an average 50 per cent, higher. Cheap 
production and high earnings go, therefore, pretty well in hand. 

The duty upon cotton goods for the protection of American labor employed in that 
Industry is from 35 to 60 per cent. Upon what hypothesis can it be shown that American 
labor, working for a less price per piece or pound, is permitted to share any part of the 
protection given to the cotton factory ? 

" Mr. President, I do not know that I want to take up the time of the Senate 
to-night in presenting a list of these different samples of goods that I have here, 
showing the effect of this proposed legislation upon the cost of these goods ; and 
perhaps therefore, I may call attention, omitting that and one or two other things, 
with respect to the labor-cost in the manufacture of the goods upon which you 
propose to levy a duty of 50 per cent., as you say, to protect the home manufacturer 
after you have given him two or tliree slices out of the compensatory duty. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 247 

"Mr. Wadlin, in his report for 1890, on page 81, giving the amount of the aver- 
age labor-cost in the manufacture of woolen goods, gives it at 21.95 per cent., and 
the worsted goods at 21.04 per cent. He goes on to state, speaking of the industry, 
having written to a large number — some thousands of them — and they report to him: 

In the following industries the percentage of wage-cost is above 20, but does not ex- 
ceed 33.33 per cent, of the cost of the product. 

" In those we find cotton goods, worsted goods, and wooien goods. Now he 
refers us to page 30, speaking of cotton goods, in which the labor-cost in the amount 
of goods of 5,861,296 pounds manufactured into cotton sheeting was only 18.89 per 
cent, of the cost of manufacture. 

" The rate of duty proposed here is 35 per cent, upon this imported article, while 
Mr. Wadlin tell us the entire average labor-cost is only 21.4 per cent., and in this 
test-case but 18.897 per cent. 

" Then there are other things in this bill. For instance, we have the worsted 
goods, we have the cheviots, we have the carpetings and things of that kind, upon 
which Mr. Schoenhof gives us some information as well, and while I am upon my 
feet I think I will put it in the Becord. I will take them up one by one. 

•* We will take first the subject of worsted goods, in the manufacture of which 
England has taken an advanced position by reason of her ability to control in 
large measure the wools suitable for combing. Raw wools being admitted duty 
free into England, London became the store-house of the combing wools of the 
world The factories in the United States were limited in the choice of these 
wools. It is one thing to make corded soft wool goods, and quite another to make 
combed wool goods when the imperfections all lie and, show upon the smooth sur- 
face. 

" Notwithstanding all these disadvantages, the American worsted manufacturers 
have made great progress, and with free wool can now compete with England in 
any market, both as to cost and quality. In 1888 Mr. Schoenhof visited Philadel- 
phia where the highest wages paid in this country in the woolen industry are paid. 
He also visited Rhode Island, where, perhaps, the lowest wages are paid in the 
same industry — at least so Mr Schoenhof reports j it is not my own opinion — and 
drew a comparison between American cost and English cost in a line of goods 
known to the trade as 16 ounces 6-4 black corkscrew worsted coatings, which sell 
in England for about $1 per yard. 

" In his report he gives minutely evey item of labor-cost and other expenses in 
the manufacture of these cloths. Omitting the cost of the wool the whole mill- 
cost compares as follows . 

" Philadelphia, 50.67 ; Rhode Island, 37.71 ; England, 46.04. The English total 
and the Rhode Island total show a high cost in England. 

" Labor-cost based upon $1 per yard in England : Philadelphia, 40.3 ; Rhode 
Island, 30.40r England, 2479. 

" Labor therefore, gets 15.3 cents more per yard in Philadelphia, and in Rhode 
Island 5.43 cents more than in England in the manufacture of a yard of worsted 
cloth costinp in England |1 per yard. The duty upon this cloth is 50 per cent, 
ad valorem 

" The same authority gives the comparative cost of manufacturing cheviots com- 
posed oi shoddy and wool. Owing to the high tax upon wool, there is no country 
in the world where shoddy is so much used in the manufacture of cloths as in this 
country, and therefore no country where the people are so much cheated and 



248 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

defrauded. It being suflacient for my purpose to find the comparative labor-cost, 
the cost of material is therefore omitted from the computation. 

" The mill account of the total cost of manufacture of these cloths in the United 
States is 30.42 cents ; in England, 30 cents. 

*' The labor-cost in the United States is 18.07 cents ; in England, 12.75 cents, 
liabor here gets 5.22 cents per yard more than English labor. Duty, 50 per cent, 
ad valorem. 

" By the same authority kersey cloth is worth in England 88 cents per yard ; the 
mill-cost in the United States, 36.2 cents ; in England, 31.25 cents. 

" Labor-cost : United States, 22 cents ; England, 13.62 cents. 

" Labor in the American mill receives over and above English labor 7.38 cents 
per yard. Duty, 50 per cent, ad valorem. 

INGRAIK CARPET INDUSTRY. 

" I present herewith a statement by Mr. Schoenhof of the cost of manufacturing 

two-ply 4-4 ingrain carpet, superior quality, in America and England, omitting 
material as before : 

" Mill expense : United States, 12.32 cents per yard ; England, 15.76 cents 
per yard. 

" Labor : United States, 7.92 cents per yard ; England, 8.26 cents per yard. 

" American labor gets .34 cent per yard less than English labor. Duty, 40 per 
'€ent. ad valorem. 

" "While American labor gets less than English labor,the duty is 40 per cent, ad 
valorem to protect American labor against the pauper labor of Europe ! 

" Mr. Schoenhof shows that the labor-cost in producing a yard or^a pound, as 
the case may be, of American cloth, compared with English labor, and compared 
with English labor it is as I have stated. Therefore, the labor in this case is meas- 
ured by the product of labor, and if labor in the United States costs no more to 
produce a yard of cloth than labor in England costs to produce the same yard of 
doth, why do we impose from 40 to 50 cents per yard upon that cloth to protect 
the American laborer! 

" This has never been successfully contradicted in the world, and they defy con- 
tradiction ; they defy anybody to present any facts to show to the contrary, because 
this labor-cost is taken from their own books, and therefore it can not be denied." 

Mr. Hawley. " I want to know whether the operative in one case gets 75 cents 
a day and the other a dollar a day ? " 

Mr. McPherson. " It does not matter whether he gets 75 cents or a dollar or a 
dollar and a-half a day. I have always argued that American labor is as much bet- 
ter than foreign labor as the pay is better ; that the product of American labor 
when the cost is measured by the product of American labor is cheaper than any 
labor in the world. That is my argument ; and, when you raise the duty 40, 50 or 
60 per cent, ad valorem upon the products of foreign labor to protect American 
labor, you first ought to show that American labor gets any part of that protection." 

Mr. Schoenhof says : 

I have taken the highest American weaving wages paid, not taking into account that 
with the improved ^ooms weaving is done at from three-fourths to IX cents less per yard. 
Still, with all this, the genera, cost is much less than the English cost, and with wool at 
the English cost a yard of carpet could be produced in America for 41.07 cents, which 
^osts 44.51 cents in England." 

The duties on woolen cloths under the McKinley bill are three times the duty 
•on a pound of unwashed wool and 40 per cent.; three and a half times and 40 per 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



249. 



cent.; four times and 50 per cent., according to the value of the goods per pound. 
The specific rate is Avhat is called a compensatory duty and is levied on the asser- 
tion made by the manufacturers that it takes as many pounds of unwashed wool 
to make a pound of the cloth as this specific duty on the cloth is times the duty 
on one pound, of such wool. Unwashed wool pays 11 cents per pound, and the 
44 cent duty compensates for this tax. The 50 per cent, ad valorem, according tO' 
their theory, is the amount of their protection. 

The only reason for a compensatory duty is, of course, that the wool costs that, 
much more by reason of the duty on it ; but the 50 per cent, duty covers both thS' 
whole cost of the avooI contained in the cloth and the value of the cloth that is due 
to the labor and all other elements entering into the cost of its production. Thus, 
they get 44 cents specific on the wool, plus 50 per cent, of the cost of the wool,, 
making 84 cents because of the wool alone; and, in addition, 50 per cent, of that, 
portion of the value of the cloth not due to the wool in it. This is obtaining money 
by false pretenses, for it does not take four yards of the wool used here to make a. 
yard of cloth. 

The following, based on tables introduced by Senator McPherson, shows three-, 
operations of the manufacture of woolen goods, in one of which the wool was. 
clear Australian, and in the two others mixed, as shown : 



Table showing weight of wool to pound of cloth^ etc. 





■d 




-C 




■d 




d 




<D 




^^_^ 




©q-l 




®tM 




^ 




•s^ 




"S® 




•s^ 




^ 


. 


%Xi 


i 

0-1 


^-d 


^ 


§d 


Sort of wool. 




E 
S 


l§. 

IH 


Hi 




^2 




03 


o 

CO 


i^- 


O 


s^' 


o 


s^- 




-o 


Xi 


P 


Ki 


^1 


d 


«l 




fl 


rt 




fl 




% 


§ 


%t 


i 


%% 


§ 


%l 




Ph 


PM 


^ 


PM 


^ 


P. 


Ph 


Australian 


1,600 


914 


1.73- 


857 


1.87- 


835.50 


1.91 


Australian and domestic 


3,281,576 
25,050 


2,440,020 
12,985 


1.34+ 
1.92 


2,087,762 
12,174 


1.50+ 
2.05 


2,056,568 
11,870 


1.59* 


Australian, Ohio and Pennsylvania. 


2.U 



From this an average of two pounds of wool would be a very liberal one. 
But that is not all that the tables show. They show the whole operation of manu- 
facture from the wool to the cloth, and that the waste, noils, etc., worked out of 
the wool are worth from over 9 to over 12 per cent, of the original cost. The statement 
is made, however, that the wool grown in South America and used in England- 
shrinks three-fourths. If that is so, we have such an advantage over the Eng- 
lish manufacturer by reason of using only two pounds to his four, that the tax 
levied on our people is simply infamous and there is nothing in extenuation of it. 
If we could only get that and all the other wool free of tax to mix with ours, we- 
could drive England out of her own markets and give employment to thousands 
of workmen in doing it. 

As indicative of the profits made by the woolen manufacturers, this statement, 
made March 29, 1890, by Mr. Whitman, treasurer of the Arlington mills, Lawrence., 
Mass., before a special meeting of stockholders, is interesting: 

" I have been your treasurer for a consecutive period of twenty years. During this 
period the average earnings have been 20.8 per cent, upon the capital. The earnings of: 

32 



250 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

last year were nearly three and a-half times those of the year previous, and there is every 
Indication that the coming year will be one of the most profitable in the company's his- 
tory." 

This is a statement of an American manufacturer to liis stockliolders, under 
the present tariff. 

In his remarks Senator McPhekson said : 

" One manufacturing company, according to Mr. Spofford's Almanac, paid a 50 
per cent, stock dividend. Very well ; we will go on. Here is the Arlington Com- 
pany. Par value of shares, $100 each. It has paid dividends of 5, 10, 10, 10, 6, 6, 
6, 6, 6 and 8 per cent. 

" Now, let us inquire, is this the same Arlington Mill of which this Mr. Whitman 
was the treasurer ? If so, they report to the world a certain rate of dividends, and 
he reports to his stockholders three times that rate. Let us see how much they 
have paid by way of stock dividends. I do not lay my eye on that immediately, 
but I will go on with the others that have paid stock dividends. 

*' Here is the Hamilton Machine Mill Company. Par value of shares, $1,000. 
And the Hamilton Woolen Mill Company ; the par value of its shares, $100. They 
paid 10 per cent, a year right straight along. They paid a 20 per cent, extra divi- 
dend to their stockholders. Take the Lancaster Company. Par value of shares, 
$400. They paid 121 per cent, in 1877, 20 per cent, in 1878, 20 per cent, in 1879, 
17| per cent, in 1880, and they have paid besides a 50 per cent, extra stock dividend 
in 1880 after paying that 171 per cent, profit or dividend. 

" Now, we will go on. Take the Lowell Company. Par value of shares, $690. In 
1877 they paid 20 per cent.; in 1878, 30 per cent.; in 1879, 35 per cent.; in 1880, 65 
per cent.; in 1881, 20 per cent., in 1883, $35; in 1884, $17; in 1885, $30; in 1883, 
$20 ; in 1887, $40. Par value of share, $690, and they paid $40 per share. 

Mr. Frye. What per cent, would that be ? 

Mr. McPherson. 1 have not figured that up. 

" Now here is the Lowell Machine Company. Here is the par value of shares, 
f 500 They paid 10 per cent, in 1877, 10 per cent, in 1878, 10 per cent, in 1879, 
besides a 20 per cent, dividend. Now we find figure 8, which is the Columbian 
Company, par value of shares, $1,000. They paid 8 per cent, in 1877; they paid 
.15 per cent, in 1887 and in 1878, besides $1,000 per share extra. 

*' Now, Mr. President, I do not think that I come very far from showing that, 
in addition to dividends upon the stock, they have not come very far short of get- 
ting a very large dividend upon the increase as well through this stock certificate. 

" But when you come to take the statement made by the honorable Senator from 
Indiana, it was a report made by Mr. Whitman to his own stockholders that during 
the whole lifetime of that company, if I correctly read it, that during the period of 
twenty years 

Mr. VooRHEES. Yes ; he said he had been treasurer twenty years. 

" Mr. McPherbon. During this period the average earnings had been 20.8 per 
•cent, upon the capital. It is pretty safe to assume that manufacturing in New 
England is quite a profitable enterprise. 
*« »*♦♦*»»*» 

Mr. Fryk. Where did the Senator find in any writing anywhere the statement 
which he made that the Amoskeag mill paid 20 per cent, on the market value of ^ts 
stock, which was $2,050. 

" Mr. McPnERSON. The Senator knows very well that when I find that there is 
a stock dividend given in addition to the regular dividend, and in a single year 



TARIFF TAXATION. 251 

where they earned 10 per cent, with a stock dividend of 33^ per cent, more, which 
makes 43^ per cent., and as I did not know at that time that the shares were $1,000 
each instead of $100, I was understating the fact rather than overstating it. 

Senator Yoorhees said, when the high-tariff Republicans tried to get around 
these statements: 

" That statement was made in the hearing of every member of that committee 
present. Nobody gainsaid it. Nobody rose to say that no manufacturing establish- 
ment had had over 10 per cent. Twenty per cent, was thrust into their, faces and 
no denial made, and never has there been until now. 

" Who is Mr. Whitman ? He is not only treasurer of the Arlington Mills at 
Lawrence, Mass., which makes these articies of part cotton and part wool, men's 
dress goods, but he is the president of the Woolen Manufacturers' Association of 
the United States, a man of the very highest standing and note, and responsible 
for what he says. The idea of antagonizing his statement thus made, to my mind 
smacks of great unfairness and want of candor. If it was a known fact that the 
manufacturers of New England had not made such dividends, nobody knew it 
better than the Senator from Rhode Island, an expert on the subject of manu- 
facturing in general, more perhaps than on any other. 

" This denial of these huge profits is an afterthought ; and I wish to emphasize 
the evidence here, to reproduce it, and show who testifies. Mr. Whitman, the 
president of the Woolen Manufacturers' Association, as well as the treasurer for 
twenty years of the Arlington Mills, at Lawrence, Mass., testifies to an average of 
more than 30 per cent, upon the capital for the last twenty years, and that the busi- 
ness is getting better, last year three and a-half times better than any year before, 
and the coming year promising to be one of the best in the company's entire history. 

Here is a statement exhibited by Senator Carlisle : 

"The Senator from Massachusetts referred to the Englishman, and nearly always 
does when he addresses the Senate upon this subject of the tariff. I have here a 
communication from Bradford, England, to the American Woolen and Cotton 
Financial Reporter, which, I believe, is a protectionist paper, and which I will 
read in confirmation of the statement I made a moment ago that this policy of 
imposing high rates of duty upon manufactured goods will bring the English here, 
or rather the Englishman's capital here, to purchase these establishments, while he 
will take the dividends away and spend them in England. Here is the communi- 
cation : 

Bradford, England, August 13, 1890. 
Editor of the American Reporter: 

The Democrats and anti-protectionists wall find an urgent support for their views in 
the result of the last three years' trading of the Providence, R. I., worsted mills of Mr. 
Charles Fletclfer, which are about to be offered to the public at a capital of £850,000, and 
on the basis of following profits as set forth in the proof of the prospectus, which is being 
freely discussed over h'ere : 

1887 £68,917 8s. 9d.=$334,249.58 

1888 87,196 14s. = 422,903.99 

1889 97,300148. = 471,908.41 

" And this is one of the poor worsted factories for which we have increased to- 
day the duties upon worsted goods enormously in the paragraph we have already 
passed over. The figures are vouched for by leading firms of public accountants." 

These statements should be read along with the further one that these New 
England companies, and indeed nearly all companies there, are family and clique 
affairs that cover up their profits in enormous salaries to the stockholders for 



252 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



nominal seryitres, $25,000 and $50,000 per annum being no unusual payments. As 
«ach stockholder can have a position, the earnings can be divided up and only a 
moderate dividend be publically declared. 

Cutlery. This table. shows the rates on knives, etc. 



Rates of duty under- 


Increased ad va- 


Existing law. 


H. E. 0416. 


lorem rate 
from— 




Table -Ten ires, etc. 
10 cents per dozen and 30 per cent •••••'•••(.•• 


Per cent. 
40 to 50 






473^ to 58 




40 cents per dozen and 30 per cent 


41 to 47 






44 to 63 




$3 per dozen and 30 per cent i 


40 to 55 


35 per cent - 


Carving, etc. 
$1 ■npT" fln^PTi ntirl Rfl npr ppt»+i. -.... 


55 to 80 




$3 per dozen and 30 per cent 


59 X to 70 






57.25 to 63.33 




$5 per dozen and 30 per cent 


50.80 to 70 









These tables show the rates established on pocket-knives, razors, carving and 
butcher knives, etc. : 



Table C. — One-blade pochet knives. 
[Present duty, 50 per cent.] 



Foreign cost per dozen. 


Proposed duty. 


Proposed rates. 


$0.18 

.34 


Per cent. 
117 
100 

82 

75 
132 
118 
109 
100 


13 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 


.37 




.48 


If tf ti 


.61 


50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 


.73 

.a5 




1.00 


It rr ft 






A vPTn pfA vatp 


103 









These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold is 
always of the cheaper grades, which would bring thp actual average much higher than 
Above given. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



253 



Table D. — J wo-blade pocket knims. 
[Present duty, 50 per cent.] 



Foreign cost per dozen. 


Proposed duty. 


Proposed rates. 


$0.37 
.48. 






Per cent. 

82 

75 
133 
118 
109 
101 

95 

91 

87 

84 
113 
109 
105 
101 


12 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 






61 


50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 

11 II 11 


73 


,85 




97 


If ft ff 


1 10 


11 tf ft 


1.22 


ft ft ff 


1.34 


If ft It 


1.46 




1 58 


$1 per dozen and 50 per cent. 


1.70 


ft ft 


1 82 




1 95 


II ff 




A.verage 








100 











These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold is 
always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actual average much higher than 
above given. 



Table E. — Three-blade pocket-knives. 
[Present duty, 50 per cent.] 



Foreign cost, per dozen. 


Proposed duty. 


Proposed rates. 


$0.48.... 

.61 


Per cent. 

75 
132 
118 
109 
101 

95 

91 

87 

84 
109 
105 
101 

98 

96 

93 

91 

89 

87 
117 
107 
100 

95 

90 

83 


12 cent 
50 cent 
ft 

ft 

It 
$1 per 

II 

ft 

It 

II 

$2 per 

It 

ft 
ft 

ff 


s per dozen and 50 per cent, 
s per dozen and 50 per cent, 
ft If 


.73 


0.85 




.97 


ft ft 


1.10 


ft tt 


1.22 




1.34., 


It It 


1.46 


dozen and 50 per cent. 


1.70 


1.82 


11 If 


1.95 




2.07 


ft ft 


2.19 




2.31 


It ft 


2.43 




2.56 


ft ft 


2.68 


dozen and 50 per cent. 


3.00 


3.50 


ft ft 


4.00 




4.50 


ff ' ft 


5.00 


tf ff 


6.00 










98 









These averages are made up for like quantities of each price. The proportion sold is 
always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actual average much higher than 
above given. 



254 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Table F. — Four-blade pocket-knives. 
[Present duty, 50 per cent,] 



Foreign cost per dozen. 


Proposed duty. 


Proposed rates. 


$1.22 

1 34 


Per cent. 
91 

87 

84 
113 
109 
105 
101 

96 

91 

87 

84 
113 
109 
105 
103 

98 

96 

93 

90 

89 

87 

86 

84 

83 

79 

77 


50 cents per dozen and 50 per cent. 


1.46 




1.58 


$1 per dozen and 50 per cent. 


1 70 


1.83 




195 




3 19 




3.43 


1! It 


3.68 




3.93 


If ti 


3. 16 


$3 per dozen and 50 per cent. 


3 41 


3 65 

3.89 

4.14 


tt • H 

»» tf 


4 38 


It tf 


4.62 




4 87 




5. 11 


tf tt 


5 a5 




5. 60 


tt tt 


583 


It tf 


6.07 - 




6.70 


tt If 


T.30 








Average rate 


94 









These averages are made up for like quanties of each price. The proportion sold is 
always of the cheaper grades, which would bring the actual average much higher than 
above given. 



Table G.—T7ie 



table shows the present and proposed rates of duty on 
pocket-l 



Foreign cost, per 
dozen. 


Proportion 
of imports. 


Present 
duty (50 per 

cent, ad 
valorem). 


Pror»osed 
duty. 


Increase of 

proposed 

duty over 

present duty. 


Proposed 
duty ad 
valorem. 


$0.24 


Per cent. 

17>^ 

50 

. . ; 

2X 


$0.12 

.26 

.37 

.50 

.61 

.79 

.91 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

3.00 

3.50 

4.00 

4.50 

5.00 


$0.24 
.70 
.87 
1.00 
1.11 
1.79 
1.91 
3.50 
4.00 
4.50 
6.00 
5.50 
6.00 
6.50 
7.00 


Per cent. 
100 
190 
135 
100 
80 
125 
110 

ia3 

100 
80 
66 
57 
50 
45 
40 


Per cent. 
100 


.52 


150 


.74 

1.00 


120 
100 


1.33 


91 


1.58 


113 


1.82 , 


105 


3.00 


117 


4,00 


100 


5.00 


90 


6.00 


83 


7.00 


78 


8.00 


75 


9.00 


72 


10.00 


70 







Figured out at the proper proportion of Imports for each grade the duty is over 110 
per cent, ad valorem. 



TARIFF TAXATION.^ 



255 



Table H. — Razors. 
(Present duty, 50 per cent, ad valorem.) 



Foreign cost, per dozen. 



$0.72 
.96. 
1.20. 
1.44. 
1.68. 
1.92. 
2.16. 
2.40. 
2.64. 
2.88. 
4.08. 
4.56. 
6.00. 



McKinley bUl. 



Per cent. 
170 
1»4 
113 
100 

90 

83 

76 



95 



SI per dozen and 30 per cent. 



$1.75 per dozen and 30 per cent. 



Table I. — Carving hnwes and forks. 
[Present duty, 35 per cent.] 



Foreign cost, per dozen pieces. 



:$1.46 

2.19 

2.92 

3.65 

4.38 

5.11 

5.84 

6.82 

7.79 

8.76 

9.73 

11.00 

12.00 

13.00 

14.00 

15.00 

Average rate 



Proposed duty. 



Per cent. 
99 
76 
64 
58 
73 
69 
64 
59 
56 
64 
61 
57 
55 



63 



67 



Proposed rates. 



$1 per dozen and 30 per cent. 

$2 per dozen and 30 per cent. 

$3 per dozen and 30 per cent. 
$5 per dozen and 30 per cent. 



Table J. — Butcher knives. 



Inch. 



4)i 
6.. 
5X 
6.. 
6>^ 
7.. 
8.. 
9.. 

10.. 

11.. 

13.. 

13.. 

14.. 



Foreign 
values. 



$0.81 
.89 
1.06 
1.22 
1.38 
1.63 
2.10 
2.60 
8.25 
8.90 
4.70 
5.30 



30 per 
cent. 



$0.2430 
.2670 
.3180 
.3660 
.4140 
.4890 



.9750 
1.17 
1.45 
1.59 
2.0580 



In addi- 
tion per 
dozen. 



$0.15 

.15 

.50 

.50 

.50 

.50 

.50 

.50 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 



Total 
duty. 



$0.3930 
.4170 
.8180 
.8660 
.9140 
.9890 

1.13 

1.28 

1.9750 

2.17 

2.41 

2.59 

3.0580 



Duty. 



Per cent. 

48 
46 

77 



Actual 
assort- 
ment as 
imported. 



Dozen. 

5 

100 

150 

1,300 

200 

300 

300 

100 

200 

40 

100 

2 

30 



2,727 



Average, 68 per cent, against 35 per cent, at present; but the principal fcnife, C-inch, 
will have to pay 80 per cent.. duty. 



256 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



About 1^ of the cutlery used here is of domestic manufacture, so that these 
duties put but little money in the Treasury, while they enrich the manufacturers. 
The statistics show enormous profits for these gentlemen. 

Nearly all our cutlery imports are sold on their brands, and are bought because 
of peculiar merit. 

Saws. Mr. Vest: " Mr. President, I want to supplement what I said by making 
an additional statement in regard to hand-saws which are used by house carpenters 
and by farmers throughout the country. 

" There is no article of more prime necessity. The greatest manufacturer of 
hand-saws in the United States, if not in the world, is the firm of Henry Disston 
& Sons, of Philadelphia. Mr. Emerson, it will be noted in the testimony which I 
read, given by him before the Ways and Means Committee in 1888, states that the 
Disston saw is exported from this country and sold in England. Those are the 
saws that make up the exports which the Senator from North Carolina has alluded 
to in his remarks to-day. 

" I have before me a statement from the house of Alfred Field & Co., in regard 
to which a good deal has been said, and I believe it to be absolutely true from other 
information I have or I should not read it in the Senate. I will give the authority, 
and I am entirely responsible for the truth of it. 

Recently Henry Disston & Sons, Philadelphia, purchased up all the saw-making con- 
cerns in this country and now control the products. They export at a very much lower 
price than the home price. My firm have been buying largely from one of the concerns 
which Disston has recently absorbed, and the following will show the outcome of 
Disston's control. 

Hand-saws cost us within three months, $2.75 per dozen ; cost now, $3.50. 

Hand-saws cost us within three months, $3.75 per dozen ; cost now, $5. 

Hand-saws cost us within three months, $4.25 per dozen ; cost now, $7.50: 

Kitchen saws cost us within three months, $2 per dozen ; cost now, $3.25. 

Keyhole saws cost us within three ntf)nths, $1 per dozen ; cost now, 1.50. 

Compass saws cost us within three months, 90 cents per dozen ; cost now, $2. 

That is the result of this monopoly caused by the purchase of all these estab-^ 
lishments by this great firm in Philadelphia. 

The man from whom I have been purchasing, Mr. Richardson, came out here some 
years ago from England and started the saw business in a small way in Newark, N. J. He 
sold out his business to Disston within three months past for, as I understand, $400,000^, 
and haj now gone back to England to enjoy his fortune. 



Mr. President, that is the history of that case. 
Files. The following shows the taxes on files 



Length. 


Valued at— 


Duty. 


Equal to- 


5? irrnhp*? . . ............. 


25 cents per dozen 


35 cents per dozen 

1! It 

it li 

U tf 

»» TI 

tt tl 


per cent. 
140 00 




140.00 


1) It 


30 H H 

40 »< " 

45 .- t. 

50 ti .. 


116.66 




87.5 




77.7 




70 







TARIFF TAXATION. 



257 



And tids relates to flat ^ flat ^carding, Jialf round, mill, square and round bastard; 
flat and half round wood rasps; horse rasps. 



Size. 



3 Inches . . 
3^ incnes 

4 Inches . . 
4^ inches 

5 inches.. 

6 inches.. 

7 inches . . 

8 inches . . 



Sterling list, 
per dozen. 



10 



English cost in 
American cur- 
rency, per dozen, 
at discount of 
50X5 per cent. 



0.5414 
.5414 
.5414 
.5986 
.6554 
•7980 
.9700 

1.2000 



Duty, per 
dozen. 



Cents. 



Ad valorem 
duty. 



Per cent. 



125 

114>^ 
94 

77 
62>^ 



And this to taper saw-flies. 



Size. 


Sterling list, 
per dozen. 


English cost in 
American cur- 
rency, per dozen, 
at discount of 
50X5 per cent. 


Duty, per 
dozen. 


Ad valorem 
duty. 


2H inches 

3 inches 

d}^ inches 


s. d. 
4 

4 

t § 

5 

5 6 

6 6 

7 6 
9 6 


$ 0.4560 
.4560 
.4560 
.5130 
.5700 
.6270 
.7410 
.8550 
1.0800 


Cents. 
35 
35 
35 
35 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 


Per cent. 

76^ 
76 X 
76 K 




68^ 


4>^ inches 


]19>^ 
101^ 


5 inches 

5>^ inches 


6 inches 


87^ 




69>i' 





Mr. Saxton states in an appendix to this table as follows : 

The above English flies are TV. & S. Butcher's make, Sheffield, which we consider much 
superior to the American. There are flies made in England that fairly compare with 
American quality that are sold at 60 X 10 per cent, discount from above sterling list. 

These tables are all from Field & Co. These are given only as examples. A 
like exhibit could be made as to every schedule in the law. 

It will not escape attention that the highest rates are always on the lowest 
priced articles, thus throwing the heaviest burdens on the poor. 



I>rawbacks of duty, domestic and export prices. 

A very important provision of the bill is that which allows the Treasury to 
refund 99 per cent, of the duty paid on materials going into tinished products, when 
the products are exported. At present the drawback is 90 per cent, on raw materi- 
als contained in goods manufactured wholly from imported materials that have 
paid duty. 

It will be impossible under the provisions of the bill for many manufacturers 
to get the benefit of this drawback, but in so far as any benefit may be derived, 
the drawback is an indefensible discrimination against our own consumers in 
favor of our manufacturers and their foreign customs. The ostensible purpose 
is to give various raw materials to the factories free of tax. Of course it is another 
clear confession that the tariff is a tax, as it is to enable our manufacturers to cell 

33 



258 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

abroad in competition with the world at lower prices than they exact from the 
consumers in this country. 

This is a system of business already in operation on a large scale irrespective 
of the present drawback. Manufacturers now ship abroad and sell their wares for 
from 10 to over 70 per cent, less than they are charging our own people right at 
the factory doors. One of two things must therefore be true. Either they are 
making money out of their shipments or they are exacting from the people of 
this country sufficient amounts to enable them to maintain this foreign competition 
at a loss. 

The advocates of the spoliation tariff must take one or the other of these horns 
of the dilemma. Whichever they take, the conclusion is irresistible that their system 
is a burden to our people. If these goods are sold abroad, at a profit, they can be 
sold here at the same prices at a profit. If they are sold at a loss, we are making 
good the losses that are sustained. 

This export trade is not confined to surplus stock, damaged and inferior goods. 
It is a regular system established and maintained upon the supply of just such 
merchandise as is supplied to our people. Some of this merchandise entitles the 
exporter to drawback and some of it does not. That fact must be distinctly under- 
stood ; for the Republicans in Congress insisted day after day and in the face of 
the most positive proof, that the export prices were due either to the drawback or 
to some exceptional quality of the goods exported. 

Some of these Republicans denied that goods for export are sold at lower 
prices than are asked for like goods that go into domestic consumption ; some ex- 
plained i^ by the drawback ; some by the quality of the goods ; some by saying 
that the discounts allowed from domestic lists were equal to or larger than from 
export lists ; some said that only the surplus stock is sold abroad and others had 
the audacity to justify their tariff system by saying that it enables our manufac- 
turers to enter foreign markets. This justification is all the condemnation that 
can be asked. 

But few of the manufacturers themselves undertook to explain or deny the 
facts ; they admitted them or were silent, and thus manfully maintained that they 
are engaged in a perfectly legitimate business, as they manifestly are. 

The indictment is against the tariff system that makes this legitiment ; not 
against those who take advantage of the system to enrich themselves. This is the 
object of the system and no one can rationally expect anything else from it. 

It may properly be again stated that every explanation and excuse offered by 
the Republicans was promptly met and overthK>wn by overwhelming proof. The 
justification is a confession of the indictment. 

Every penny that is taken from the cost of implements, clothing and provisions 
used by foreignors and every penny that is added to the cost of such articles here, 
takes just that much from the weight of our competitors, or adds just that much 
to our own in the race for markets. It is a handicap in any event. 

Bearing this in mind, the facts that are here set out will make their impression 
on the minds of farmers who have been burning corn for fuel and selling what re- 
mained of their crops at less than the cost of production. 

It will be impracticable to present all the evidence of this business or to enum- 
erate all the articles to which the proof relates, but sufficient will be given to illus- 
trate the whole. It may be added that as this is written, the " Export Supplement" 
and price lists arc at hand. They are illustrated with cuts of the articles as indi- 
cated in the articles given. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 259 

The document reads : 

Export Supplement, New York prices current. " Discounts for export only." 

This paper is not circulated in the United States. 

Here follows an article from the New York World, giving the advertisements : 

Every farmer knows the price he has to pay for these implements. Here is the adver- 
tisement, to sell at retail, free on board, at New York, at discounts rangmg from 30 to 70 
per cent, from the list price— which is lower than the dealer in them can buy, while the 
farmer must pay the list price. To the foreigner the protected mill-owner sells a seed- 
drill for $6.30 ; a combined drill, rake, and plow for $9.30 ; a Firefly wheel-hoe and plow 
for $3.50 ; a hand-plow for $1.75. The foreigner buys an Oneonta Clipper plow for $9.80, 
but no American may. 

For the Chieftain hay-tedder the American pays $59, the foreigner pays $35.40, and in 
like proportion for all like things. 

On plows of all kinds the discount to the foreign buyer is 30 per cent. 

On the Nye improved rake the discount to the foreign buyer is 25 per cent. 

On all other horse-rakes, hay-tedders, and potato-diggers, 40 per cent. 

On garden rakes the discount to the foreign buyer is 70 and 5. 

On cast-stael garden rakes it is 70 per cent. 

And so on. These advertisements continue in this one paper for forty-two columns. 

Every protected industry in the United States which four weeks ago was besieging 
the Committee on Ways and Means for more " protection ,' than it now has is advertising 
to sell abroad cheaper at retail than it will sell at home wholesale. Its " protection " is 
" protection to charge the American consumer a higher price than it charges the foreign 
consumer." 

All the denials the paid advocates of the protected mill-owners may utter will not 
avail against the simple foreign advertisement of the mill-owners themselves. It is not 
a question of taking any man's word. Each voter can easily prove it for himself by send- 
ing 25 cents to the Engineering and Mining Jom-nal and asking for the export supplement, 
or by having a friend in some foreign country send him the foreign advertisements of 
these protected mill-owners. The former Is the easier and quite as convincing. 

There are forty-two wide columns of this reading in each issue, which should be 
" interesting if not important " to the Republican farmers who have voted steadily for 
twenty-five years in favor of " protecting " these manufacturers in charging from 10 to 20 
per cent, more to their countrymen than they charged to foreigners. 

To get at the exact facts, the tariff-reform committee of the Reform Club of New 
York began last autumn to gather from the protected firms their domestic discount 
sheets. By correspondence from foreign countries, through foreign merchants, the for- 
eign discount sheets were obtained, although in some cases they were furnished directly 
and Witt the domestic discounts— the sender being cynically indifferent to any comment. 
The worh of compiling and collating was intrusted to Mr. J. Alexander Lindquist, of Cor- 
nell University, one of the most painstaking and careful of tariff writers, and he has now 
on file, tabulated, and arranged, many thousand of these discount sheets, covering every 
fcrancli of protected manufactures, and showing that in every Industry the mill-owner 
can and does, and is only too glad to compete in the foreign market, where he is not " pro- 
tected," with the foreign mni-ovnier. 

Omitting the illustrations, here is a summary of his report of the home and foreign 
prices charged by the protected firms engaged in some of the protected metal manufac- 
tures. In every case the " foreign price" is retail, for a single article (or!package), free.on 
board in New York City, while the domestic price is tor large wholesale lots at factory, 
freight or express to be paid by the buyer. 



In home 
market. 



To for- 
eigners. 



SHOVEL&— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Shovels, cast-Steel, long handles, round point. No. 1, per dozen. 

No 3, per dozen 

Cast-steel, D handle, round point. No. 2, per dozen 

No. 3, per dozen : 

Spades, cast-steel, D handles, No. 2, per dozen 

No. 3, cast-steel, long handles, per dozen 



$9 20 
9 80 
9 60 

10 00 
9 20 
9 80 



$7 86 
8 37 
8 21 
855 

7 86 

8 37 



These are prices for home and export trade of the shovels manufactured by one of 
the most prominent members of the famous "Home Market Club," of Boston. Other 
manufacturers of shovels offer similar discounts. One firm in particular, whose adver- 
tisements has a prominent place in the Australasian and South American, gives a dis- 
count on its list prices to the " home market " of from 15 to 25 per cent., while for the ex- 
port market its discount is 33K per cent. For export all goods are delivered •' free on 
ooaxd " at Boston or New York. 



260 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



CITLTrVATORS— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Wheel hoe cultivator rake and plow 

All steel horse hoe and cultivator, with wheel 

All steel plain cultivator, with wheel 

RAKES AND TEDDERS— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Lock-lever rakes 

Self-dump rakes 

Hay-tedder 

Potato-digger 

PLOWS— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT, 

Two-horse : 

Chilled, 9-inch cut mi 

All steel, 9-inch cut 

Chilled, 10-inch 

AU steel, 10-inch 

Three-horse : 

Chilled, senior 

Chilled, junior 

All steel, senior 

All steel, junior 

Pour-horse : 

Two-gang plows, all steel * 



58 80 



In home 
market. 


To for- 
eigners. 


$1100 
8 00 
720 


$8 40 
6 75 
450 


15 00 

18 00 

36 00 

800 


14 31 

17 13 
35 25 

6 75 


5 60 
8 40 

6 30 
10 50 


5 04 
756 
5 67 
9 45 


7 70 

735 

14 00 

14 60 


693 

6 61 

13 00 

13 60 



53 93 



These are the prices that the foreign farmer has to pay for one plow, and the prices 
which the American dealer in plows has to pay in large lots at the factory. The foreigner 
pays no more freight than the American dealer— sea freights are cheap. Farmers know 
the prices they have to pay the local dealers. 



HAMMERS AND WRENCHES— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Round hammers : 

No. 5, per dozen 

No. 7. per dozen 

No. 8, per dozen 

Solid cast-steel : 

Adze, eye, nail, 7-ounce, per dozen 

1 pound, 4 ounces, per dozen 

Machinists', ball pein : 

1-pound, per dozen 

3-pound, 8 ounces, per dozen 

Wrenches • 

Black, 10-incli, per dozen 

Bright, 10-inch, per dozen 

Mechanics' black, 10-inch, per dozen 

Other, bright, 10-inch, per dozen 

Nickeled, 10-inch, per dozen 

Polished ratchet brace : 

8-inch sweep, per doeen 

I^mch sweep, per dozen 

Polished patent brace: 

8-inoh sweep, per dozen 

11-inch sweep, per dozen 

Bit Braces : 

7-inch sweep, per dozen 

12-inch sweep, per dozen 

Spoflford, 7-lnch sweep, per dozen 

14-lnch sweep, per dozen 

Sleeve brace, 12-inch sweep, per dozen 

AXES— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

First quality, bronzed, per dozen 

Be\eled, per dozen 



In home 
market. 


To for- 
eigners. 


$4 37 
4 18 
3 64 


$4 05 
3 83>^ 
3 37 


3 75 

4 50 


3 37 

4 05 


6 00 
10 00 


5 40 
900 


5 83 

6 75 
534 
4 65 

7 37)^ 


4 36 

5 08 
3 93 
3 99 

6 75 


12 00 
14 10 


10 80 
13 69 


430 
4 80 


3 50 
400 


9 46 
13 50 

7 20 
13 60 
13 60 


7 58 
10 83 

6 36>i 
10 64 
10 88 


7 76 

8 24 


« 75 
730 



Other qualities and sizes at similar prices. The above prices to the home trade are 
for spot cash for axes delivered on cars at the factory ; for export the axes are delivered 
in New York. 

Last month the ax manufacturers of the United States formed a "trust," under th^ 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



261 



name of the " American Ax and Tool Company." The trust was formed by the consolida- 
tion of fourteen,of the largest manufacturing concerns in the country. Concerning it the 
Iron Age of March 27, 1890, says : " The general feeling among the trade is that the ax- 
makers haye formed a verv strong ' association,' and have complete control of the market, 
or so nearly so that the outside makers will have scarcely any appreciable effect on prices. 
It is found that scarcely any orders can be placed with outside manufacturers who are 
not under th.e control of the ' American Ax and Tool Company.' The trade will do well 
to note the changed condition in this line of goods as regards the higher prices now rul- 
ing, and the strong probability of their maintainance for some time to come. On flrst- 
quality goods an advance is now made of $1.75 to $2.25." A further advance is contem- 
plated in the home market. There Is no advance possible in the foreign market. 



HATCHETS— PROTECTED, 45 PER CENT. 

Shingling and lathing : 

No. 1, per dozen 

No. 3, per dozen 

Claw: 

No. 1, per dozen 

No. 3, per dozen 

Broad 7>i inch, per dozen 

SLEDGES— PROTECTED, 2^ PER POUND. 

■Cast steel, 5 pounds and over, per pound 

Blacksmiths', 5 pounds and over, per pound 

Anvil tools, top swedges, per pound 



In home, 
market. 



$4 56 



5 13 



08.1 
08.1 
15 



To for- 
eigners. 



$3 80 

4 27 



427 
4 75 
922 



07.3 
07.3 
13>i 



Top fullers, flatters, set hammers, cold chisels, railroad track chisels, hot chisels, etc. 
are quoted at the same prices per pound as top swedges tor the home export trade, re- 
spectively. 



ANVILS, VICES AND GASKETS— PROTECTED ; ANVILS, 2 CENTS PER 
POUND ; VISES AND CASKETS, 45 PER CEN . 

A.nvlls, 100 to 800 pounds, per pound 

Vises, solid box : 

No. 25 

No. 100 

No. 150 

No. 200 

Gaskets, corrugated copper, per square inch 




To for- 
eigners. 



$0 07.3 

4 32 

7 92 
13 96 
30 16 

00.8 



The McKlnley tariff bill proposes to raise the duty on anvils, 
f acturers may probably be able to lower the price for export. 



If it passes anvil manu- 



SAD-IRONSAND FLUTING-MACHINES— PROTECTED 13^ CENTS PER POUND. 

Sad-irons, nickel-plated, per dozen sets. 

Knox fluting machines, 8-inch 



In home 
market. 



$16 20 
3 90 



To for- 
eigners. 



$13 50 

324 



Similar discounts on Crown, Eagle, and A erican fluting-machines. 



KITCHEN HOLLOW WARE— PROTECTED 1)^ CENTS PER POUND 

Flat-bottom kettles 

Round-bottom kettles, lOK-inch 

Spider, 8-inch 

Spider, 13-inch 

Griddle, 10^-inch 



In home 


To for 


market. 


eigners. 


$140 


$0 85 


1 82 


110 


35 


27 


91 


55 


56 


34 



Similar favorable prices to the export trade are given on all other kinds of hollow- 
ware. The above are taken as samples only. 



262 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



FREEZERS, PARERS, AND CHOPPERS— PROTECTED 45 pER CENT, 

Ice-cream freezers, six quarts : 

Gem 

Blizzard 

Apple parers, per dozen 

Meat choppers : 

No. 10, each 

No. 42, each 

WRINGERS— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Wringers : 

Length, 10 inches by IM inches diameter, per dozen 

12 inches hy IM inches diameter, per dozen 

Other sizes and styles at proportionate prices. 
Clothes dryers : . . , 

THERMOMETERS— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Thermometers : 

Seven-inch, per dozen 

Twelve-inch, per dozen 



In home 
market. 



2 45 
2 10 
4 50 



11 62 



26 67 
40 00 



6 67 



1 00 
1 60 



To for- 
eigners. 



$ 2 32 

1 99 
3 5a. 

2 10 

10 50. 



24 00' 
36 00 



OOi 



9a 

1 44 



BRITANNIA AND PLATED WARE— PROTECTED 35 PER CENT. 

For What is called hollow ware, such as tea sets, cake dishes., etc., listed at $10, the 
home dealer pays $5.40, but the buyer for the foreign market pays only $4.61 for the same 
articles. 

On knives, forks, spoons, and other flat ware listed at $10, the price to the dealer in the 
" home market" is $4.36 ; but a buyer for export, regardless of the quantity he may take., 
pays only $3.73 for the same articles. 

The largest manufacturers of these goods have consolidated their interests and in this: 
way control prices as well as though a trust had been formed. That the public generally 
may not become aware of this the goods are sold with the stamps of old companies, as. 
though no change had taken place. 



LANTERNS AND OIL-CANS— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Buckeye : 

No. 3. per dozen 

No. 4, per dozen 

Lift lanterns, per dozen 

Glass oil-cans, 2 gallon, per dozen 

FIBER WARE— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Standard fitter ware, per dozen : 

Water-pails 

Dairy-pails 

Fire-pails 

Measures : 

One peck 

Half peck 

Spittoons, large 

Buggy pails 

Milk-pails 

Water-tubs, 23 inch 

Keelers, 7!inch, deep 

Milk-pans 

Water-coolers, 3 gallon 

Water-coolers, 15 gallon 

Water-coolers and filters, 10 gallon 

PULLEYS AND BLOCKS— PROTECTED 35 AND 45 PER CENT. 

Trucks, No. 4 



In home 


To for- 


^market. 


eigners.. 


$5 75 


$5 50' 


5 25 


5 00 


425 


4 00 


350 


3 15. 


400 


34a 


4 50 


380» 


500 


4 30 


4 00 


34a 


3 50 


2 93^^ 


18 00 


14 40 


3 60 


2 88 


5 a5 


4 68 


20 25 


16 20 


12 15 


9 72 


3 70 


2 16 


24 00 


19 20 


90 00 


72 00 


144 00 


115 20 



4 80 



4 oa 



On all trucks the discount to the home trade is 40 per cent. ; to the export trade 50 per- 
cent. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



263 



blocks for rope strap : 

13 inches and over • • . . . • . . i . . . . i 4 4 . 1 1 4 1 . . . 4 1 . . 1 1 . . 4 4 . • • . . . , 

13 inches and under 

6 inches and over 

Dock blocks 

Iron strap blocks, m. b 

Iron bi^hed 

Lizzaros or bull's-eyes 

Sheaves, iron bushed 

Plain iron 

Metalline bushed 

Swivel blocks, m. b 

Wrouj?ht iron blocks, i. b 

Metalline bushed. , , , 

SCALES— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Grocer, one-half ounce to 63 pounds 

Meat and butter, one-half ounce to 63 pounds 

Platform : 

1,000 pounds 

3,000 pounds 

Dormant : 

3,500 pounds .■ 

5,000 pounds 

Hay-scales : 

3-ton capacity 

20-ton capacity 

RULES, LEVELS, AND PLANES— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Eules. boxwood, per dozen 4 4 4444. 

Ivorv, per dozen 

Planes, wood, smooth 

Jack 

Jointers 

Iron, smooth 

Jack 

Jointers 

Plumbs and levels 

24 to 30 inches, brass tipped, per dozen 

«HEARS, SCREW-DRIVERS, AW^L AND TOOL SETS— PROTECTED 45 PER 

CENT. 

Shears, Victor, 4-inch, per gross 4 ... 4 4 4 . 4 ... 4 .... 4 4 .... 4 4 4 ... . 

11-inch, per gross 

Clipper, 5-inch, per dozen 

11-inch, per dozen 

Diamond shears. 9-inch, per dozen 

Acme, 10-inch, per dozen 

Tailors' Japanned, 12-inch per pair 

16-inch, per pair 

Nickel-plated, 13-inch, per pair 

16-inch, per pair 



In home 


To for- 


market. 


eighers. 


$5 40 


$4 60 


5 00 


4 50 


5 40 


4 60 


7 00 


6 30 


7 00 


5 40 


600 


5 40 


700 


6 00 


600 


5 00 


5 40 


500 


7 00 


6 30 


7 00 


6 00 


6 00 


5 40 


7 00 


6 30 


6 00 


5 40 


7 00 


6 30 


35 50 


33 95 


63 50 


56 25 


53 50 


46 25 


85 00 


76 50 


87 50 


78 75 


335 00 


203 50 


169 


1 44 


14 40 


11 66 


1 08 


97 


135 


12m 


2 52 


3 27 


1 76 


158 


203 


1 82 


3 51 


3 16 


3 40 


2 55 


6 80 


5 10 


300 


3 66 


12 06 


9 88 


1 05 


77 


2 43 


1 78 


1 80 


1 62 


1 83 


148 


3 60 


3 40 


8 40 


6 60 


4 50 


330 


10 50 


7 70 



On trimming shears, ladies' scissors, paper and bankers' shears, and pruning shears 
similar favorable prices are given to the export trade. 

CARTRIDGES— PROTECTED BY 45 PER CENT. 

Cartridges which are sold to the American dealer for, say, SIO, can be bought for ex- 
port at a discount of nearly 50 per cent., or for about $5. 

In the manufacture of cartridges, as in other things, strong combinations are in con- 
trol and protected by the duty, and the " Sheet-Copper Trust " can charge the American 
consumer such prices as the manufacturers choose to exact. 





In home 
market. 


To for- 
eigners. 


LATHES, DRILLS AND SAWS, 45 PER CENT, 

Circular saw 


$30 0(T 

7 50 


$25 55 
6 35 


Scroll saw 







264 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Screw-drivers, 2-inch, per dozen 

Other sizes of proportionate prices. 

Awl and tool sets, No. 1, 10 tools in handle, per dozen 

No. 2, combination set, per dozen 

LOCKS AND RAT-TRAPS— PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

Locks and padlocks, per dozen : 

No. 1 brass padlocks 

No. 85 

No. 39 

Scandinavian locks, per dozen : 

No. 119 

No. 130 

No. 130 

No. 140 

Malleable iron, per dozen : 

No. 9 

No. 14 

Other varieties are sold at similar discounts. 

Bat-traps, 5-hole metallic traps, per dozen 

Bat-kiliers, per gross 

BOLTS, AUGERS AND BITS. 

Protected : Bolts, 2}4 cents per pound ; augers and bits, 45 per cent. 
Common or agricultural carriage bolts : 

Length, 3 inches diameter, % inch, per 100 

Length. 3 inches • diameter, % inch, per 100 

Length, 4 inches , diameter, % inch, per 100 

Philadelphia carriage bolts : 

Length, 2 Inches ; diameter, H inch, per 100 

Length, 8 inches ; diameter, % inch, per 100 

Length, 4 inches ; diameter, % inch, per 100 

Tire bolts with forged nuts : 

Length, 2 inches ; diameter, % inch, per 100 

Length, 3 inches ; diameter, % inch, per 100 

Length, 4 inches ; diameter, % inch, per 100 

Augers and bits : 

Carriage bits, per dozen 

Auger bits, under one-half inch, per dozen 

Auger bits, one-half inch and above, per square inch 

Hand rail bits, per square inch 

Carpenters' augers, per square inch 

Millwrights' augers, per square inch 

Gas-fltters' augers, per square inch 

Post-makers' augers, per square inch 

Car-builders' bits, over one-half inch, 9-inch twist, per square 
inch 

Car-builders' bits, 16 inches, per square inch 

Pump augers, each 



58 4-5 
68 3-5 
79 3-5 

1 00 
1 16 
1 36 

1 00' 
1 16 
1 36 

4 05 
4 05 
313-5 

37 

31 a-5 

36 
37 
313-5 

31>^ 
40>^ 
18 00 



In home 
market. 


To for- 
eigners. 


$0 47^ 


$0 37>^ 


8 10 
13 25 


5 50 
8 50 


730 

9 00 

13 00 


6 00 

7 50 
10 00 


73 

81 

99 

117 


60 

61)4 
83>^ 
97>^ 


87>^ 
3 80 


67X 
3 16 


75 
18 50 


50 
15 00 



46 
54 
63 

85 

98 3-5 
1 15 3-5 

71J€ 
83 ?i 
97 

3 42 
3 43 
18>^ 

32 4-5 

30 2-5 

33 4-5 
18ii 

36 3-5 
341-5 
15 30 



NAILS AND TACKS, ETC. 

Protective duty : Tacks 2)4 to 3, and nails 4 cents per pound. 

To American consumers the discount on carpet tacks of Swedes iron or steel or Amer- 
ican iron, blued, tinned, or coppered, are 70, 10, and 3 per cent. To foreign consumers the 
discount is 70, 10, 10 and 3 per cent., and one-half per cent, per pound allowance for freight, 
or, as given by some firms, 70, 35, and 2, which is an equivalent, delivered free on board 
ship. 

On other varieties the basis discount, both for home and export trade, varies from 40 
to 75 per cent., but on all the extra discounts quoted above are given to the foreign trade, 
that is, for tacks listed at $10 (two dozen papers of tinned ii'on tacks, weighing 24 ounces 
per paper), the American consumer is charged $2.65 and the foreigner only $3.20. Similar 
favorable prices to the export trade are given to cut nails, finishing nails, and other vari- 
eties. These are the prices charged the wholesale merchant in this country who takes 
large lots but to the foreign trade the prices are given whether the quantity taken be 
small or large. Abroad, our tack manufacturers must meet competition from those of 
England and the continent ; at home, protected from foreign competition by tariff duties 
they have entered into agreements to fix the prices at which theii* goods are to be sold, 
■which prices they adhere to. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



265 



Horse nails : 

Essex No. 6, per pound . 
Essex No. 8, per pound . . 
Essex No. 10, per pound. 

Lyra No. 6 

Lyra No 8 




To for- 
eigners. 



14 
ISii- 

10>^ 
9 1-5 



Protective duty^ 6 to 12 cents per pound. 

One of the Very closest combinations engaged in any branch of the iron trade controls 
the production and price of wood screws. The manufacturers keep up prices here at 
their will, protected as they are by the high duties. Screws wnich cost the home dealer 
$10 net can be obtained for export for $6.66, or one-third less, provided that a bill of lading 
is shown the manufactui-er to assure him that the goods have been actually exported 
and that consumers here have not profited by his generosity to foreign consumers. 

The manufacture of rivets is also controlled by a combination here, and while It 
makes the home dealer and consumer pay high prices, the exporter and foreign consumer 
are very favorably treated. Rivets listed at $10, for instance, are sold to the largest home 
dealers for $5.55 ; but to the exporter, regardless of quantity, for only $4.50. 

On all such goods as screw-clamps, saw-vices, pulley -hooks, jack-screws, barn-door 
hangers, and other hardware specialties of similar description, which cost the large 
liome dealers a net price of $10, for instance, tlie exporter gets a discount of at least 10 per 
cent, and consequently pays only $9. 



Post-hole di-^ers, per dozen. 
Tree protectors, per dozen. . . 



In home 
market. 



$15 00 
9 00 



To for- 
eigners. 



$12 33 
8 01 



Similar favorable prices are given to the export trade on other iron and wood working 
machinery. Some manufacturers give even better prices than the above to the export 
trade. American-made lathes for iron working are used all through England, and there 
are houses in England which deal exclusively in American-made wood and iron-working 
machines. 

TYPEWRITERS, PROTECTED 45 PER CENT. 

A typewriter, which costs in this country $100, or, if the buyer has already purchased 
three, $90 for each additional one he may buy, can be bought for export for $60. 

But space is worth something, and it is idle to print more. For every item here 
quoted, or that remains to be quoted, the price lists are on file, and these prices to Ameri- 
can and foreign consumers are the prices certified as correct over the signatures of the 
protected firms charging them. 

There is no guesswork in the foregoing figures. They cannot be Impeached by any 
Kepublican editor or advocate of the continuance of protection who has any character 
to lose. 

To the blind, the deaf, and the idiotic, who cannot or will not look and listen, these 
figures will have no meaning, but to the men of sense, who have not surrendered them- 
selves into party slavery, they will have much. They can no longer believe the liars who 
are hired by the mill-owners to tell them that they need this " protection " and must have 
it or they must close their mills. 

All the Republican farmers of the United States are not blind and daft. Some can see 
the truth, though many willfully shut their eyes and refuse to look or listen. 

Of course, these damaging advertisements could not be allowed to go unde- 
nied, so diligent efforts were made to show that they were false. Senator Vest 
wrote to Mr. Wilson and received this reply : 

Thb World Editorial Booms, World Building, Park Bow» 

New York, August 25, 1890. 

Dear Sir : I thank you for your letter which gave me the first (and only) news I have 
of the fact that my accuracy has been questioned. To satisfy you and any honest man that 
I have told the simple truth, I enclose herewith a letter from the n^anager of the export 
edition of the Engineering and Mining Journal from which I republished the advertise- 
ments. 

S. L. Allen & Co. refused to sell to the World's domestic subscribers at the same discounts 
at which I can have orders filled here in New York for the World's foreign subscribers. I 
hold their letter refusing to do so. 

34 



266 "DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGlSr BOOK. 

I Wfite this letter with a pile of S. L. Allen & Co.'s letters to the Engineering and Win- 
ing Journal before me, giving their prices to its foreign subscribers, and they are exactly 
what the Engineering and Mining Journal prints and I had photographed. 

S. L. Allen & Co. wrote to the World, denying that they ever sold their implements at 
the prices named in my article copied by photograph from the export edition of the= 
Engineering and Mining Journal, with their receipted bills not 200 yards away of singl© 
implements sold at these prices to any foreign subscribers to the Journal at retail, I 
objected to publishing it— in their interests. It was untrue— conspicuously, even 
resplendently untrue— and I did not wish to araw attention to any particular Arm out of 
so many hundreds by making a vicarious sacrifice. 

They insisted and printed their letter in the Agricultural Press, which forced me to 
give it the notice it has received. 

If there is any Republican Senator who will go over the evidence on file in the office of 
the Engineering and Mining Journal that S. L. Allen & Co. now sells and has been selling 
for three years to any of its foreign subscribers, or any person who sent it an order at 
the prices named in its announcement to foreigners, and believe the statement that it does 
not sell to the foreigners at retail at these i:)rices I fear he would believe neither Moses. 
nor the Prophets, and that it is useless to add anything further to the controversy, which 
degenei;ates into a quarrel as to whether the sale of one plow to any person wanting it is. 
a wholesale or retail sale. 

No man of sense will question for one moment that the statements made in the 
Engineering and Mining Journal concerning its own private office business are strictly 
true or will ask for proof while the advertisement or " announcement " to its subscribers, 
stands unquestioned. 

What is true of Allen & Co. is equally true of the Ann Harbor Agricultural Company. 
They are birds of a feather- and in spite of Dundreary's question they do flock together. 
The latter has absolu.,ely refused to even make an explanation to the readers of the 
World of their advertisements in the April number of f he Mail and Export Journal, They 
dare not attempt one. There was nothing to explain. Not a copy of the export edition 
of that paper is permitted to remain in this country, the editor assures me, and the copy 
sent here from Buenos Ayres with the foreign offer to the foreign reader was a surprise- 
from which the company has not yet recovered. If the Senator from Michigan will in- 
form himself of the other side of this puestion he will throw up his defense of this com- 
pany which dare not defend itself before an audience of 100,000 listeners familiar with the 
facts. 

I regret that so much prominence and free advertising should have to be given to 
two firms who happen to stand at the head of the alphabetical list when there are dozens 
further down who are much more flagrant offenders. 
Yours sincerely, 

T. E. WILSON. 

G. G. Vest, Esq. 

Here is more from the World : 

The revelation made in the World of May 14 concerning the discounts granted by pro 
tected American manufacturers to foreign buyers has created a sensation throughout the 
country, and for the past week a J the liepublican organs has been engaged in explaining^ 
and denying. 

Mr. Lindquist's report and the comparative tables published in the Woild were readL 
in the House during the tariff debate. May 30, the World having sent copies to each mem- 
ber of Congress, and Mr. Smyser, of Ohio, attemped to make a denial on the authority of 
the Cleveland Leader, but found himself in a moment in a very deep hole, from which he 
was glad to crawl out. One of his colleages rushed to the telegraph room and sent a dis- 
patch to a widely-known protected manufactm-er ia New York, asking him to telegraph 
a prompt and ringing denial. Within twenty minutes he received this reply from his 
correspondent . 

'• Of course we sell cheaper to foreigners than to Americans. What is protection for ?'* 

The sender of the dispatch, a protected r lanuf acturer, who is not afraid of telling the 
truth, not only sent this reply, but at the same time telegraphed the inquiry and his reply 
to a prominent Democrat member of the House to prevent any mistake about the facts If 
he should he misrepresented. • The Republicans found the poker too hot to hold, and 
dropped it. The gag law ahd flve minutes rule was applied to the Democrats. 

Every Republican newspaper that has touched this question has been at a great deal 
of pains to misrepresent it. The ma.iority deny the facts in toto. The minority assert that 
the World quoted trade prices abroad and retail prices at home. The latter was the 
Cleveland Leader's assertion, and many Republican papers have contented themselves with 
republishing the Leader's article, makmg no comment of then- own. Ihe last number of 
the Engineering and Mining Journal disposes of the Leader and the Leader's statements m 
a manner to make the editor of that Republican newspaper long for a foreign consulship 

"discounts fok exports only." 

"In the House of Representatives, on the 20th instant, in the discussion of the tariff 
bill, Mr Mansur, of Missouri, brought up the question of our manufacturers selling their 
goods for export cheaper than they do to the home trade, and he cited the Export Price 
List, issued every month withtlie Engineering and Mining Journal, in proof of the truth of 
his statement. Mr. Mansur, knowing the standing of this journal, naturally felt assured 
that the statements and figures published in our pages are absolutely correct and can be 
relied on ; but Congressman Smyser, of Ohio, with whose views these facts clashed, replied^, 
quoting the Clevelaiul Leader to" the effect that American manufacturers make lower dis- 
counts to the home trade than to the foreign, a statement which is so easily disproved, 
that the Cleveland Leader can not be ignorant of the fact. . ^, , 

" We recently received a letter from the head of the chief protection organization in. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 267 

this country asking in the most naive manner whether It Is actually true that greater dis- 
*counts are given to the export trade than to our home buyers ; and if so, the reason 
why? It would seem, therefore, that among the ultra protectionists there is a large and 
•convenient amount of ignorance on a subject which we had supposed was so well known 
AS to call for no special comment, and which, in fact, is so well known that the regular 
monthly pubhcation of the fact, and of the actual export prices of our manufacturers, as 
given in the Engineering and Mining Journal, have never been questioned or controverted, 
though we have had frequent letters from some manufacturers objecting to our letting 
the home trade know the prices and disounts at which they sell 'for export only.' 

" In order to confirm the confidence which Mr. Mansur has shown in our statements, 
•on receipt or the Congresmonal Record of 21st instant, containing the report of these 
speeches, we had a few of the most important manufacturing concerns, with offices In 
this city, interviewed, and we give here briefly the substance of what they say. The names 
are witheld, though we forward them to Mr. Mansur for his satisfaction. They are aU 
Arms of high standing, the largest concerns of their classes, and their statements are 
easily verified. 

' The manager of a very prominent iron works said : 

' We manufacture exclusively engines and boilers ; we, of course, make a discount 
lor export. As an illustration : The 20-horse-power engine on the first page of our cata- 
logue is listed at $700. Our lowest price for the same to dealers or wholesale houses of 
■any kind in this country is $525 net ; our export price for the engine is $495 net. Our export 
•discount ranges from Zk to IK per cent, better than the home trade, according to the size 
of the engine.' 

" One of the very largest exporting firms, who manufacture silver-plated ware, say : 

" ' We allow an export discount of 60, 10, and 5 from our list. The best home discount 
'we ever give is 50, 15, and 10 per cent. This, however, is only on large orders.' 

" Another of our large silver-plate manuf actm-ers, who does a very large export busi- 
"ness, says : 

" ' Our export discount is 50, 10, and 5 per cent. Our home discount is 50 per cent. We 
.sometimes allow an extra 5 per cent., but only with a few firms.' 

" A slate-manufacturing concern, doing a very large business, says : 

" '• Of course we have special export discounts. (See " Export Discounts" stamped on 
outside of our catalogue.)' 

" The catalogue shows these ' export discounts' to be from 33K to 50 per cent, and on 
large lots 5 per cent. more. 

"One of the largest cutlery companies in the country, doing a good export business, 
:says: 

"'We, of course, make a considerable difference in the discounts on export trade. 
We object, however, to giving you our home discounts, as they fiuctuate, 

" The export discounts in this case are 4 per cent, greater than those to the home trade, 
.and the firm writes : ' Prices are for export only.' 
A large fancy hardware house writes : 

" ' Certainly we make a difference on export trade. Our discounts, however, fluctuate 
.so much that we will have to make a list out for you.' 

' A very important hardware house answers : 

" ' Lowest price at which we sell goods, class A or net, we allow for export a discount 
of 10 per cent. ; upon all other goods we allow 33 >^ per cent, for export and 25 per cent, to 
large home dealers.' 

August 27, 1890, the World pi blished this : 

To THE Editor of the World : I find that I have done the Engineering and Mining 
Journal an injustice in supposing or inferring that it made a profit by or through the sup- 
ply of protected American manuf aaturers to its foreign subscribers at from 30 to 70 per 
icent. " discount for export only." I find upon investigation that the Journal was in pre- 
cisely the same condition that the Woi^ld was and is. It had a very large foreign sub- 
scription list, scattered all over the world. The foreign manufacturers were offering 
fror 30 to 70 per cent, discount for foreign export trade. The regular commission i er- 
'Chants in this city'who handled that trade did nothing to foster it, as will be seen from the 
following extract from a letter from a foreign subscriber to the Journal : 

" 13 Port Royal Street, Kingston, Jamaica. 
" The curse of your American trade is the excessive prices charged by your so-called 
•commission agents in New York, who pretend to ship at 2}^ per cent., but in reality, 
by keeping back discounts, and ficticious prices, actually pocket 10 to 20 per cent. 
Thus American goods cannot compete with English in spite of meanness to us and 
less per cent. " THOS. McNASH." 

The state of things described in this letter compelled the Engineering and Mining 
Journal to protect its foreign subscribers, and it made a.rrangements for them to receive 
directly from the manufacturers, or through their agents, the goods which could be 
•exported. 

It makes no money by this. It receives the individual foreign orders and hands them 
over to the agents of the manufacturers to fill a the price it name in its export edition. 
I-^ gathers from all parts of the world the advertisements of all these exporting manufac- 
turers, obtams from them their export discounts, and devotes from twelve to twenty 
pages of the export edition to news concerning the retail prices here in New York to its 
foreign subscribers of American goods of every kind. 

These sales are retail sales. They are sales made to any subscriber of the Engineering 
<and Mining Journal. More than this. They are not limited to subscribers; any person 
on any foreign country can send In and have an order filled at these rates. There is no 
dnquiry made as to whether he is a subscriber. That is supposed. It does not matter 
TvJiether he is a don or a peon, a merchant or a book-worm, a farmer or a gambler. What 



268 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

his occupation, business, or means of livelihood is does not concern either the Journal or 
the agent of the manufacturer who fills the order. No inquiry Is made. Whoever in a 
foreign country wishes to purchase at these prices is welcome and no questions are asked 
him. No delays of six months or a year are made in shpplng the goods. No voluminous 
correspondence Is held. 

This trade is retail trade. Each subscriber orders the unit article advertised. If it Is 
a plow advertised, he orders one plow. If it is a dozen spoons that is advertised, he 
orders the dozen spoons. He can not order one teaspoon at the price of a dozen, or one 
fork at the price of a dozen, because they are only advertised by the dozen, and 
the doz;en is a unit ; but he orders only one plow, one tedder, one mower, one reaper, 
unless, indeed, he should need any more than one on his farm. He buys exactly as the 
domestic retail subscriber buys and under the same conditions— but not at the same 
prices. The difference, the only difference, is in the price, 

AVhen the very grave and reverend Senators, the successors of the "venerable men" 
O] Webster gravely discussed these question last Friday they took it for granted that 
this foreign trade was foreign wholesale trade, and that these goods were sent to the 
foreign wholesale dealer instead of to the foreign subscribers to American newspapers. 

The idea is absurd and impossible. There is no foreign wholesale trade. It is not yet 
big enough to be wholesale. The foreign trade that we pick up is and must be a retail 
trade for a long time to come. In other words, it is a trade in single articles or in the 
unit of single articles, with any purchaser who may order— without asking any questions 
as to his occupation. If not true of one or two special articles, it is perfectly true of all 
trade under discussion. In all other trade the foreign wholesaler must get a better price 
than this foreign retail trade gives the individual buyer. 

The Engineering and Mining Journal has a large domestic subscription list. Their 
domestic subscribers are barred from these export prices. They can not get these special 
prices. A special price-list is secured for them, and they are permitted to buy at retail 
a. the wholesale American rates, or what are called "wholesale American rates." But 
these wholesale American rates are far aL«ove the foreign export discounts. Let any 
person send to the Engineering and Mining Journal for two copies, one of its domestic 
edition and one of its export edition, and see the two offers that are therein made— the 
one to the foreign subscriber, the other to the domestic subscriber. 

Every foreign subscriber to the World can buy here in New York, at retail, anything- 
advertised in any foreign supplement, or in any foreign newspaper, at the prices and 
the special discounts therein named. These prices are not wholesale but retail prices. 
The World will guaranty to fill every order that wiU be sent to it from any country of the 
globe. li will fill that order by turning it over to the agent of the manufacturer who sells 
those goods. 

But no domestic subscriber to the World can buy at these prices. Often the domestic 
wholesale buyer in the largest lots can not buy within 25 per cent, of these retail export 
prices. 

The following letter from the manager of the export edition of the Engineering and 
Mining Journal should end this question. It leaves nothing more to be said : 

" Enginbeking and Mining Journal, New York, August 20, 1890 : 

" DEAR Sir : I am^obliged to you for the letter of August 25, respecting proceedings 
taken in the Senate regarding our ' prices current.' 

" Prices quoted by us are, as you will notice at the head of the first column, ' for export 
only,' and the prices therein given are the prices at which every foreign subscriber can 
buy in this market. It stands to reason that orders for farm implements are frequently 
for one only. If to buy one machine is retail trade, then these foreign prices are retail 
prices. 

" Our domestic suhscrihers are harred from, the prices quoted, in these columns. These 
special discounts are for ' export only,' and in more than one instance we have lost our 
advertiser through our publishing these prices. 

"I inclose an invoice from S. Allen & Co., which you will see is for one of the 
machines quoted by us, and you will notice that it conforms exactly with our prices as 
reprinted by you in the World, and that the net price on the bill is exactly as stated by 
you in the World, 

" One of the largest exporting manufacturers of paints and varnishes makes the fol- 
lowing very important statement. We may say that the heads of this concern are, or 
were at the time of the last Presidential election, very strong Republicans and protec- 
tionists. Their political and politico-economical views appear to have been very greatly 
modified by the practical working of the trust-protection policy now in force, and by the 
threatened increase in the tariff . 

" 'We used to make a discount for export higher than for the home trade, but the 
trusts have completely destroyed the export trade in paints and varnishes. To give an 
idea of the injury trusts have done us you will readily see. Linseed oil to-day is selling 
in England at 34 cents per gallon ; we are paying 62 cents per gallon to the trust. This is 
a difference of 80 per cent, in favor of the English manufacturer. White lead is selling in 
England at 4 cents per pound ; we are paying 6>^ net, making a difference of 60 per cent, 
against us. We can not buy our oil in England, as there is a tariff of 25 cents per gallon 
on oii ; thus, with freight, insurance, and other charges, it brings the price of oil the 
slightest fraction over the price charged by the trust. They are now talking of raising 
the tariff on linseed oiL This will enable the trust to again raise their price on It. 
******** * * * * ♦♦ 

A tool company which makes picks, hammers, etc.— 

*' Refuse absolutely to give the Erminctring and Mining Journal an advertisement as 
long as it continues to publish their export dLscounts.' 

^' The agent for a blower manufacturer says they— 

" Give a discount on all of their goods of 10 and 5 per cent, for export, whereas they 
only give 10 per cent, for home trade. 



TARIFF TAXATION 269 

"A company manufacturing water moters, hammers, etc., makes the following' 
discounts : 

" On water moters, allow 40 per cent, for export, 30 per cent, for home trade ; on ham- 
mers 40 per cent, for export, and 20 per cent, for home trade ; slaters' tools they give 30 
and 35 per cent, for export, only 20 per cent, for home trade.' 

"A manufacturer of packing wriles us : 

" The very bottom home price on packing is 40 cents net per pound, and the best for 
export 38 cents ; the list in both cases being 75 cents per povmd." 

These examples could be multiplied Indefinitely and are merely cited in confirmation 
of what " every one knows "—that our manufacturers sell goods " for export " cheaper 
than to the home trade. The fact is indisputable. 

Will it be surprising if the people of this country who are imposed upon by tariff-pro- 
tected trusts, and who are taxed so enormously through the operations of a war-tariff, 
some day arise and sweep the whole protective policy away without considering the in- 
calculable injury that this sudden change of conditions will bring upon many important 
industries ? 

The Republican editor or speaker who attempts to further monkey with this ques- 
tivn or who tries to delude the Hepubli can voter with misrepresetations on this particu- 
lar subject may wish he nad never been born. As the Jovmal says, the facts published in 
the World have never been questioned or controverted, and never will be questioned or 
controverted by the protected manufacturer, although they may be denied by the apolo- 
gists whom they hire to misrepresent the facts and delude the public. 

Since the article of May 14 was prepared Mr. Lindquist has succeeded in obtaining from 
South America copies of the Export Price Li * sent to foreign countries with each copy of 
the American Mail and Export Journal^ not a copy of which is permitted to remain in this 
country or to be seen by any American, and the second chapter of this exposure will be 
more crushing than the first. T. E. W. 

Com^menting on these articles, Senator Vest said, referring to Senator Aldrich, 
he tariff leader on the Republican side '^ 

" Now, so far as human testimony is capable of going, I think that settles the 
question. From the advertisement itself and from the advertisements of 156 man- 
ufacturers that I have exhibited here — and I have the papers to show it — these dis- 
counts range from 10 per cent, up to 70 per cent, of difference between what the 
American can buy the articles for and what the foreigner can buy them for." 

There had been a denial of the statements made concerning the factory men- 
tioned here by Senator Vest : 

" Here is the advertisement of the Ann Arbor Agricultural Company, which 
was defended here by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Stockbridge]. Here is the 
same plow, photographed with the same number, sold in the United States for $18, 
and with no mark "wholesale" or "retail" upon it. Here is the same plow, 
photographed the same number, which is sold free on board at New York to the 
South American or foreigner for $9. 

Now, what is the explanation of that ? The Senator from Michigan after con- 
ferring with these manufacturers, who did not themselves come forward in their 
own defense, says that this $18 plow is sold to the middleman for $9, although the 
advertisement says $18, and that the $9 difference between the price paid by the 
middleman and the $18 is the margin allowed for profit, commisions, etc., to the 
middleman. In other words, a farmer goes into a retail dealer's establishment in 
one of the towns of Missouri and wants to buy one of these Advance plows. 
" What is the price ?" " Eighteen dollars." " That is pretty high." " Yes, sir ; 
but here is the price ; here is the advertisement ; $18 is what it cost me and Tvhat it 
is sold for by the manufacturer — $18." The farmer pays it. He finds out that the 
real price at which the middleman has received it from the manufacturer is $9. 
Why is the advertisement made to the farmers of the United States ? Is it a fraud 
in order to conceal the truth and enable these enormous profits to be made off the 
farmer by the middleman, and as a matter of course the manufacturer makes a 
profit by selling it at $9 to the middleman, and the middleman has the margin 
between $9 and $18 upon which to plunder the farmer. If these gentleman are 
satisfied with that explanation which they have made themselves, let them take it." 



270 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Is Tbis I>ue to the I>rawt>ack? 

It is not denied that in a few cases the condition of these sales is that a suffi- 
cient quantity be taken to allow the manufacturers to get the drawback. But under 
the present law the goods must be wholly made of imported raw materials in order 
to get the rebate. There is no assertion that agricultural implements are made 
wholly of imported materials and of course no such assertion can be truthfully 
made concerning any very considerable quantity of our exports. 

The McKinley bill allows drawbacks on any raw materials imported and used 
when the product is exported, provided the material may be identified and its 
quantity established. Of course this whole provision is in the main a farce, for 
the reason that its requirements cannot be complied with. 

Senator Carlisle, replying to the statement that the lower prices are due to the 
drawbacks, produced (1) advertisementa of manufacturing establishmedts, (2) orig- 
inal letters from them and their agents offering the goods for export at the prices 
advertised; (3) orignal bills of goods, wholesale and retail, actually sold by these 
establishments at the prices advertised ; (4) testimony given by these manufacturers 
showing that they did not use imported materials. Courts of justice constantly 
sentence men to death on less conclusive evidence. 

Among other things Senator Carlisle said : 

"I will exhibit to the Senator from Ehode Island a bill for knives and forks sold 
by Landers, Frary & Clark, of New Britain, Conn., for export. But before I read 
from it, let me call the attention of the Senate to a statement made by Mr. Charles 
S. Landers, the leading member of this firm, before the Committee of Ways and 
Means of the House of Representatives during the present session of Congress. He 
said : 

I am a manufacturer of table cutlery at New Britain, Conn., and represent before this 
committee wnat is left of that industry in the United States. 

He then stated : 

As stated here last night by Col. Bradly, in the Solingen district, the Germans manu- 
facture very cheaply, and unless we are protected they will drive us out. 

And again : 

We have got to have this protection or be driven out. I have given the facts, and do 
not propose to argue the question. 

"And then he proceeds to show that for the purpose of manufacturing cutlery 
better steel is made in this country than anywhere else, and that they use American 
steel entirely. Therefore, the material is not imported, and there is no drawback 
upon their knives when they send them abroad to be sold in the foreign market 

"I hold in my hand a bill, and 1 caL the attention of the Senator from Rhode 
Island to this sentence, conspicuously, printed in red ink upon the face of it. This is 
a bill of goods by these same parties : 

For immediate cas7i, with an aqreement on the part of the purchaser that the goods shall not 
7)6 sold in the United States. Custom-house certificate to he furnished if required. 

"So that they sell those goods for exportation at a lower price than they sell 
them to American citizens for domestic consumption, and compel their purchaser 
to enter into a stipulation, spread out conspicuously upon the face of the receipt 
which he gets for the money paid for the goods, that he will not sell in the L^nited 
States, and if these manufacturers require it, that he shall produce to them the 
certificate of the custom-house to show that he has exported them for sale abroad./ 



TARIFF TAXATION. 271 

Mr. Platt. I say the case is not made out until the Senator shows that those 
goods are not sold for that price in this country to anybody. 

Mr. Carlisle. I repeat, once for all, Mr. President, that if the Senators upon 
the other sido will put in a denial of the statements I have made, I will make out 
the case even to their satisfaction, and until they do that I submit that it is 
not exactly fair to simply question my statement and call upon me to make 
proof when I produce heret he original bill. Now I read from a periodical called 
The Hardware, just handed to me : 

Landers, Frary & Co. are nniv liept very busy suppluing their Western customers with 
their superb cutlery. They were compelled during the spring 

The very time that Mr. Landers was before the Committee on Ways and Means — 

to employ about two hundred new hands to be able to keep up with the demand for their well- 
famed goods. 

"And yet the leading member of that firm, selling goods abroad cheaper than he 
sells them^here, comes before the Committee on Ways and Means and asks for an 
increase of duty upon his products upon the 'sole ground that unless he received it 
lie must go out of the business. 

"Mr. President, I have other original bills here from the Northampton Cutlery 
Company showing the prices at which they sell at home with the discount of 4 per 
cent, as I stated the other day, and which the Senator from New York appeared to 
doubt My statement then that the discount by the Northampton Cutlery Company 
upon those wares sent abroad was precisely the same as its discount upon the 
wares sold at home ? that is to say, its discount for the lower priced list which it 
had for the foreign market was the same percentage as its discount upon the higher 
prices which it had for the American market ; and here are the bills showing it, 
and here is a letter from Tommins & Adams, manufacturers. No. 95 Chambers 
street, New York, in which they say : 

Dear Sirs . We shall be pleased to supply you with the goods of the Northampton 
Cutlery Company at their net export prices subject to discount of four per cent., for cash 
in ten days. Very truly, yours 

TOMMiNS & Adams, 
Export agents for the Northampton Cutlery Company. 

These are not the statements of Mr. Saxton or any other importer ; they are 
the statements of business transactions of the manufacturers themselves and their 
authorized agents, and they show beyond any question that where there is no 
drawback allowed they are able to produce these articles at a cost which enables 
them to sell them abroad lower than they sell them at home ; and yet they are de- 
manding, not that the present rate of duty shall be maintained, but that there shall 
be an enormous increase of duty to prevent them from being driven out of the 
business 

***** * * * * ** 

" Fortunately, as to the Northampton Cutlery Company, I have a bill, and more 
than one, showing the prices at which they sell their knives to the domestic 
purchaser for consumption by the American people, and I have produced their 
foreign price-lists and the letter of their\ export agents, Tommins & Adams, show- 
ing at what prices they propose to sell the same knives for exportation to other 
countries. 

" Just upon this point the Senator raises a question, or attempts, I should say 
to raise a question, upon the letter of Tommins & Adams. He says it does not 
appear upon the face of this letter that they proposed to sell only for export, and 



272 DEMOCRATIC CAMRA.IGN BOOK. 

that the letter contains upon its face no conditions binding the purchaser not to 
resell in this market. 

Why, Mr. President, does the Senator really believe that Tommins & Adams 
propose in this letter to sell at export prices less 4 per cent, for domestic con- 
sumption ? He has not said that he believes it. They sign themselves " Export 
agents for the Northampton Cutlery Company," and do not profess to be the agents 
for the American market for that company. They simply manage its export busi- 
ness ; and when this firm writes them to know at what price they will sell them 
goods for export, they say they will sell them at " net export prices, subject to a 
discount of 4 per cent, for cash in ten days " — just what I stated the other day, 
that there was a discount of 4 per cent, upon the published list of export prices, 
and a discount of 4 per cent, upon the published list of home prices. Now I will 
produce the bill ; here is a bill of the Northampton Cutlery Company : 

Three gross table-knives 877, at $9.25 $37.75 

Two gross table-knives 685, at $11.50 23.00 

One gross table-knives 685 C, at $12.50 12.50 

$63.25 
Discoont of four per cent 2.53 

Making $60.73 

as the price of the goods. 

" If the Senator will look at the export prices shown on the export price list 
published by the Northampton Cutlery Company in its own name, he will find that 
this knife. No. 877, is sold for export at $7.50, and here, according to this bill, for 
$9.25, and the same discount on the export that is here — 4 per cent. — while the 
knife No. 685 is held for export at $8.50 and here for $11.50 per gross, with the 
same discount in each case. Knife No. 685 C is sold for export at $10 per gross 
and here for $12.50 per gross, with the same discount at 4 per cent, in both cases. 

" Now, if that does not make out a case against the Northampton Cutlery Com- 
pany of selling its goods in one case, taking these knives, at 24 per cent, less abroad 
than here, and in the other case 28 per cent, less abroad than here, and in the other 
case 25 per cent, less abroad than here, then I am unable to understand the force 
of testimony. There is its own published price list for the home and doniQstic mar- 
ket and its own statements as to the discount in each case, 4 per cent, in each, and 
here is the letter of its export agents stating the price at which they will sell and 
referring expressly to this export price list. Here also is a business transaction 
with them in which they actually sell their knives to the American purchaser from 
24 to 28 per cent, higher than they sell them abroad. 
*********** 

*' Sir, these gentlemen fire engaged in business not for amusement, not as a mere 
pastime, but, like most other people in this country, for the purpose of making 
money. I say they of course naturally and properly take advantage of the situa- 
tion as it exists, and when they find that under a system which protects them in 
the home market, and enables them to charge higher prices than they otherwise 
would, they can in view of that fact afford to send part of their goods abroad and 
sell them at lower prices and still make a profit, of course they will do so. My com- 
plaint is not against them, because they have acted simply as men always act — in 
their own interests ; but I complain of the system, of the policy which deprives the 
American consumer of the right to buy the goods of American make at the same 
price that the foreigner can buy them." 
*********** 



TARIFF TAXATION. 273 

" But when the Senator makes an argument in favor of the continuance of this 
policy upon the ground that it has a tendency to extend our foreign commerce, he 
is unconsciously making an argument in favor of the very proposition for which 
I contend and which I stated in the beginning of this discussion to-day, and that is 
that we should have free material for the use of our manufacturing industries in 
producing goods not only for exportation, but for home consumption. 

" The Senator will be bound to concede that if the allowance of a drawback upon 
goods manufactured from dutiable material enables the manufacturer of the finished 
product to send it abroad and sell it in foreign countries in competition with his 
rivals from elsewhere, undoubtedly if we allow free raw material to all our manu- 
facturers, as you do to a few establishments which are fortunate enough under the 
law to carry on a business of such a character as to enable them to import their 
raw material, all the other establishments in the country could also export and sell 
abroad and at the same time sell more cheaply to domestic consumers. 

" If we are to justify this policy upon the ground stated by the Senator from 
Rhode Island, it must be extended so as to include all the manufacturing industries 
in this country and enable them all to procure their foreign material at prices which 
will so reduce the cost of their production as to justify them not only in selling to 
our own people at a lower price than they sell now, but to export them to all the 
countries of the world and sell them in competition with like products made 
elsewhere. 

" That is the proposition which lies at the very foundation of the policy we advo- 
cate on this side of the chamber ; free raw material as far as is possible to have it, 
and lower duties than we now have upon partially manufactured articles which 
are used here in making our more highly finished products, so that we may have 
lower prices at home and a better and wider market abroad." 

These examples will suffice. If any body thinks that this system should be 
maintained in order that our people may be taxed to give cheap goods to foreigners, 
or, in the face of the evidence here presented, believes that system does not operate 
to that end, there is no use to appeal to that person's intelligence and patriotism. 
The system results the same way wherever tried. This is from the New York 
Times of September 23, 1890 : 

The Berlin correspondent of the London EconomisU writing on the 9th inst., gave the 
following information about sales of steel rails manufactured in Germany : 

" Much complaint is still being made as to the conduct of the convention in the iron 
and steel trade. At home they keep the price for rails as high as between 153 and 145 
marks per ton ; but to foreign markets they sell considerably lower. Only lately the Verein 
ac Bochum (Westphalia) took an order in Roumania at about 128, to be delivered at 
Galatz." 

The conventions are associations resembling our trusts, 
Germany has a " protective " tanff. 

Wherever this system prevails trusts, conventions and " sympathetic move- 
ments " fleece the people. 

Closing the ]>ebate 

Speaking in the Senate, toward the close of the debate, Senator Kenna, of West 
Virginia, said : 

Mr. President, the discussion of the pending bill has been able and exhaus- 
tive. It has demonstrated, among other things : 

1 That the demands of a favored class and not the public necessities or the 
public good are the inspiration and purpose ov this measure. 



274 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

2. That the increase of the public burden by the raising of tariff duties is to- 
be the actual, if not the acknowledged, effect of this bill. 

3. That just in proportion to the exclusion of the foreign article which these^ 
increases of tariff duties will accomplish the American consumer will pay his. 
taxes to the manufacturer and not to the Government. 

4. That thus the public revenue is to be reduced, not by reducing the bur- 
dens of the people, but by compelling them to pay to the manufacturers, through 
the increased cost of the articles they consume, what they now pay through the 
retail and wholesale dealers and custom-houses to the Treasury of the country. 

5. That this extraordinary scheme is for the protection chiedy of a single clasa. 
of citizens of the nine States of the Union which own more wealth than the other 
thirty-three States and the Territories combined. 

6. That this scheme will enable the American manufacturer to continue to sell,, 
as he does now, his plows and reapers, and a thousand other articles, to Mexicans 
and South American Indians from 25 to 50 per cent, cheaper than he does to our 
own citizens. 

7. That, therefore, and to that extent this is a bill for the protection of Mexi- 
cans, Spaniards, half-breeds and South American Indians, at the expense of the- 
farmers, laborers and consumers of the United States. 

8. That the duty on hundreds of articles is largely in excess of the entire 
labor-cost of their production, and often multiplies it many-fold. 

9. That protection to the product and free competition in labor reduces labor 
to the simple proposition of supply and demand, while it enhances the cost to the 
laborer and his family of the production of their own hands. 

10. That the home market is to be reserved for the manufacturer, but the mar- 
kets of the world shall supply his iabor. 

11. That we are to refuse to buy from anybody else and nobody else can there- 
fore buy from us. 

12. That our surplus cereals are to rot in their barns and our farmers to starve 
to enable our surplus manufacturers to find profitable market in foreign countries- 
with 50 per cent. off. 

13. That the proposed reciprocity with South America is intended to establish: 
a market there for our manufactures and a market here for South American pro- 
ducts of the farm. 

14. That the enormous largesses levied upon our people were made possible 
by the consequences of war, and have been made profitable to the manufacturers, 
who have been thereby enabled to maintain the prices of war in time of peace. 

15. That the farmer and laborer are plundered by war taxes under the specious., 
guise of protection to both. 

16. That England, like Carthage, has made herself mistress of the seas by the: 
vastness of her commerce while we are impoverishing our people by a denial of 
intercourse with the commercial world. 

17. That we have no ships to float our productions, and our mails are carried 
under the British flag. 

18. That the system which this bill is intended to perpetuate has given half the^ 
wealth of the country to three hundred men and is reducing the masses of the 
people to vassalage and to bondage. 

19. That the men who are most clamorous for this kind of protection are the 
millionaires and monopolists. 

20. That Mr. Carnegie's million-dollar castle in Scotland and Mr. Gould's five 



TARIFF TAXATION. 275 

million private fortress in Mexico are twin illustrations of Ijtepnblican protection 
to labor. 

21. That this bill involves a rapid rush in the transition already far advanced 
from a free people to a condition of landlordism and tenantry throughout the 
Republic. 

22. That the depressions and panics, the wants of employment, the commercial 
-disasters, the lockouts and strikes, the complaints of labor, and the impoverishment 
of the farms, the millionaire and the tramp have alike for a quarter of a century 
■exemplified the power as they have illustrated the process of Republican protection. 

These and kindred propositions have developed all along the line, and upon 
them the political parties have divided. I shall not undertake to repeat these dis- 
cussions. They are on the record and before the country. 

General Summing Up of the Bill. 

In his remarks in the Senate closing the debate on the conference report, Mr. 
tDarlisle said, speaking first of the bill as reported to the Senate from the Commit- 
tee on Finance : 

" In the statement submitted by the committee with the bill when it was re- 
ported to the Senate, or rather in a note appended to that statement, it was 
said that — 

The reduction above given, of $71,064,774 by the House or $60,599,343 by the Senate, ap- 
pears to be certain, but if the imports should be the same»as-last year under the new 
rates the reduction would amount, under the House bill, to $36,128,642 ; under the Senate, 
to $20,318,283. 

" The statement that the bill as it then stood would effect almost certainly a 
reduction of the revenue to the extent of over $60,000,000 was true only upon the 
hypothesis that every increase of duty made upon articles still remaining In the 
dutiable schedules was absolutely prohibitory io the full extent of the increase, 
and that no reductions made in the rates of Auty upon articles still remaining in 
the dutiable schedules would have the effect to increase to any extent the Importa- 
tion of those articles hereafter, for unless this hypothesis is correct the bill as it 
then stood would have made no reduction in the revenue to be hereafter received 
by the Government upon the basis of the importations during the fiscal year 1889, 
and as it now stands will make an increase upon the amount of importations dur- 
ing that year to the extent of nearly $4,000,000, as I shall proceed to show. 

" This sum of $60,599,343 was the precise amount which the bill as It then stood 
placed upon the free-list, and of this $56,000,000 in round numbers consisted of 
sugar and molasses, leaving about $4,500,000 as the reduction occasioned by the re- 
moval of other articles from the dutiable to the free-list ; and I desire to say here 
that the bill as it now stands, excepting sugar and molasses, removes from the 
free-list and places upon the dutiable-list more than it takes from the dutiable-list 
and places upon the free-list. According to these tables, which the Senator irom 
Rhode Island admitted yesterday are imperfect, and necessarily imperfect because the 
expert who made them could use only such facts and data as were contained in the 
oflBcial statistics, there was an increase in the duties upon the articles still remaining 
on the dutiable-list ot $40,281,060.59 ; that is to say, according to these tables the 
articles still remaining upon the dutiable-list yielded to the Government during the 
fiscal year 1889 a revenue amounting to $161,408,846, and under the proposed bill, 
as it then stood, the same articles according to the tables Avould yield to the Govern- 
xnent, upon the same importations, a revenue of $201,689,917, or $40,281,060 more 



276 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

than was collected from the same articles in the year 1889. But these tables, on 
account of the absence of official data, omit increases in the rates and amounts of 
duty which, according to the best estimate I can procure, would yield upon the 
importations of 1889, $19,209,760, and the Senate, by its action upon the bill^ 
together with the action of the conference committee added to that $4,895,038.94^ 
making a total addition to the rates of duty upon articles still remaining in the 
dutiable-list of $64,385,854, as against $60,599,343 reductions, thus showing a net 
increase of taxation upon the people under the customs law of $3,786,510 notwith- 
standing the abolition of the duty on sugar and molasses ; and this is not by any 
means all, because there are other large increases made in this bill which can not 
be calculated for the want of the requisite data. In many cases where ad valorem, 
rates have been changed to specific or compound, and where duties upon yards, 
have been changed to duties upon the weight of the article, it is impossible to make 
anything like accurate calculations, because quantities and values can not be 
correctly ascertained. 

"Mr. President, let it be understood that I am not contending that the revenues 
of the Government will be actually increased to the extent stated, because many of 
these duties are absolutely prohibitory, and according to M?e statement submitted 
by the Committee on Finance, from which I have read b is confessedly a bill to 
reduce the revenues by increasing taxation. While, therefore, it will not increase 
the revenues to this extent, it will increase taxation upon the people many times, 
this amount by enhancing the prices of articles of domestic production similiar to 
the imported articles upon which increased rates of duty are imposed in the bill. 

" It was said by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] yesterday that this bill 
placed more than half our importations upon the free-list, but afterwards, upon a 
suggestion made by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Aldrich], he qualified that 
statement by the presentation of figures which showed that nearly half — about 
$25,000,000 less than half — of our importations would now be placed upon the free- 
list. Mr. President, neither of the statements is correct. The total value of our 
importations during the fiscal year 1889, which is the basis upon which all these 
calculations are made, was over $741,000,000, and according to the tables submitted 
the total valuation of the goods imported subject to duty under this bill will be over 
$390,000,000 ; but since those tables were made the Senate and the conference com- 
mittee have taken articles which then stood upon the free list and placed them upon 
the dutiable-list of the value of more than $10,000,000." 
* *** ** ** ** * 

"Bristles, amounting to over $1,000,000; tin in bars, blocks and pigs, amount- 
ing to nearly $9,000,000, and many other smaller items, all which, taken together, 
increase the amount taken from the free-list and placed upon the dutiable-list since 
these tables were made over $10,000,000, making, therefore, the total value of dutiable 
articles hereafter to be imported under this bill, upon the basis of 1889, more than 
$400,000,000, and placing upon the free-list articles of the value of $341,000,000, not 
near one-half of the whole importations ; and it must be remembered that $83,388,286i 
of this sura consists of sugar and molasses alone." 

The AdministratiTe Bill, 

In addition to the McKinley bill, this Congress has passed the Customs Ad- 
ministrative bill to outlaw everybody who engaged in the criminal business of im- 
porting. Tlii.s bill reimposes tlie duties on packages and charges that were repealed 
by the act of 1883, amounting to five or six per cent, on the goods, according to 



TARIFF TAXATION. 277 

the advocates of the bill ; but when these duties were repealed they were by the 
same persons said to be much larger. They did not then anticipate reimposing 
them. 

Whatever the exact truth is, and it is difficult to ascertain it, the two bills 
together will almost certainly result in an average rate of taxation above 60 per 
cent, or 60 cents on each dollar's worth. 

But little need be said in conclusion. The McKinley bill is the most onerous 
tax bill ever passed by Congress. It is the final and decisive announcement of the 
beneficiaries of protection that the people are their serfs and must contribute a 
large proportion of their earnings to the support and encouragent of conventions, 
combinations, *' sympathetic movements" and trusts. It embodies their demands. 
They wrote its schedules and fixed its rates, which they then furnished to Con- 
gress to be enacted into law. It is the Republican party's discharge of the bond 
that it entered into with the trusts when they furnished the money to corrupt the 
ballot, put Mr. Harrison in the White House and a Republican majority in Congress. 

It is pre-eminently the farmer's tariff: he pays for it and maintains it. .When 
he gets tired of it he can easily get rid of it. 

The whole legislation and all attempts at legislation of this Congress, affecting 
the Treasury and the Trusts, may be described in a few words : 

Unlimited Taxation, Extkavagant, Indefinite and Permanent Appro- 
priations. 

Reduction of Taxes on the Wealthy. 

But the Republican party has repealed some taxes since the war. Wherever it 
could find a tax apparently bearing on the wealthy, it has stricken it from the law. 

The extent of the burden transferred by a repeal of taxation under the inter- 
nal revenue laws, to the shoulders of the laborer, is shown by a recapitulation of 
the amounts, contained in a letter from the former Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue, Mr. Miller, addressed to Mr. Breckinridge, under date of May 2, 1888, 
in which he shows that taking into consideration the growth of the country, the 
loss of revenue in 1888 by the repeal of these laws amounted to $247,703,452. 

Recapitulation of taxes repealed under the foregoing-named acts. 

Taxes repealed on— Amount. 

Manufactures and products $127,330,609 00 

Gross receipts, 11,262,430 00 

Sales 8,837,395 00 

Special'itaxes not relating to spirits, tobacco and beer 14,144,418 00 

Income 72,982,159 00 

Legacies and successions 3,091,825 00 

Articles of luxury kept for use 2,116,674 00 

Slaughtered animals 1,291,571 00 

Passports 31,149 00 

Total abolished 240,988,230 00 

Add stamp taxes reduced 366,722 00 

And for increase on gas from 1866 to 1872 989,076 00 

And for increase on raw cotton from 1866 to 1867 5,359,424 00 

Total repealed and reduced $247,708,452 00 

1+ has never touched the tariff but largely to increase it on necessaries. The 
title page of this book shows in what spirit the party has always approached this 
subject 



278 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

II. 

WAGES AND PRICES. 



The Farmers' and Mechanics' Tariff. They pay for it ; and 
how much it costs them. 

The claim has been so frequently made that the tariff tax is the cause of high 
-wages and the productive force behind all our wealth, that it will now be interest- 
ing to the public if the labor organizations throughout the country will telegraph 
to Congress information of every increase of wages that they receive because of 
the large increase of taxation. They cannot escape this duty on the plea of expense, 
ior the expense will be light indeed. 

The following self-explanatory document is interesting just here : 

3IEM0IIIAL OF THE WOMAN' S NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL LEAGUE OP AMERICA, FOR 
THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN EMPLOYED IN THE MILLS AND 
FACTORIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. 

The Woman's National Industrial League of America, having carefully watched the 
"tariff debates in the United States Senate, and having from our own observation and ex- 
perience obtaiaed facts which corroborate the statements made by several Senators, re- 
spectfully submit the following memorial : 

Evidently the intended protection liberally bestowed by the House and Senate does 
not protect labor, but is only fruitful to the manufacturers in this country. 

Women and children of tender age are virtually to-day the slaves of powerful corpor- 
ations. 

In the cotton and woolen mills of Pennsylvania, New York, and the New England 
States, women and children work at from 35 to 75 cents a day : their day's work consists 
of ten hours ; hence at from 3}i to '7)4 cents per hour. 

According to the census of Massachusetts of 1885, 23 per cent, of all persons employed 
in the cotton and woolen mills receive only $3.10 to $4.50 per week, attending to from two 
to three looms each; while in Great Britain they have charge of from one to two looms only 

Families in these aforementioned States falsify the entries in their family Bibles, so. 
as to enable them to put their children earlier to work than the law permits, being unfor- 
tunately forced to resort to these means in order to be able to meet current living 
expenses. 

The president of the Woman's National League was appointed by the chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Education and Labor to investigate the status of the working women 
in this country and has also for years past carefully watched the abuses of these corpor- 
ations, and from actual facts and statistics gathered appeals to your honorable body for 
protection to these unfortunate women and children. 

Immediately after the passage of the tariff in the House on May 21st last, whsn a 
bountiful provision of an advance of 50 per cent, on the ad valorem duty was granted to 
the cloak manufacturers, they on the 5th day of June, notified their women workers that 
their wages would be reduced 25 per cent. Receiving themselves a further protection 
of 50 per cent, on the ad valorem duty, yet reducing in turuTheir wage-workers' pittance 
to a further reduction of 25 per cent, seems like grinning mockery and wanton cruelty. 

The silk weavers of Bethlehem, Pa., have been notified by their employers that a re- 
duction of 40 per cent, of their wages has been decided upon ; they, for self-preservation, 
had to strike. 

These silk ribbon manufacturers have also been liberally provided for with an advance 
of 20 per cent, by the House and Senate on their goods, receiving a bounty of 20 per cent, 
•extra, and asking their white slaves to contribute from their already scant wages tO per 
cent., seems almost inhuman. 

Your memorialists also respectfully submit to you that women in New York city are 
making boys' jackets for 15 cents each (in fact, a whole jacket for the price of two loaves 
,of bread) : a pair of pants for 12 cents each. 

Women finishers in the woolen mills In Pennsylvania, according to Pennsylvania 
annual report of the secretery of internal affairs for 1888, receive only 45 cents a day ^not 
girls, but full grown women); women spinners, 71 cents per day ; women spoolers, from 
42 to G4 cents pey dav ; women weavers, 40 to iK) cents per day, the latter to experts only. 

In the knit-goods factories women (not girls) receive 55 cents per day for winding 
■spools!; women spinners, 50 cents i)er day ; yarn twisters, tXi cents per day ; yarn spinners, 
(66 cents per day ; reelers, 05 cents per day. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 279 

Girls at work in Pennsylvania In the shoe and boot factories received 50 cents per day. 

In the textile fabric factories the women spinners and spoolers receive from 47 cents 
to 55 cents per day, and the winders 66 cents per day, while the dressers of wOven textm-es 
get only 43 cents per day. . ,, ^ ^ . ,, 

According to the chief of the bureau of statistics of labor in Massachusetts, in his 
twentieth annual report for 1890, on page 570, he states that 391 female children from ten 
to thirteen years are employed In the factories of Massachusetts, and that 69,807 gii-ls of 
the age from fourteen to nineteen years are doing factory work. Considering that out of 
the 114,223 girls of the age between fom'teen and nineteen j^ears in the whole State of Mas- 
sachusetts 69,807 girls are factory girls, or over 61 per cent, of the whole girl population of 
that age, it seems almost incredible but for the facts presented in that official report. 

In Vol. n, page 215, of the Massachusetts census for 18a5, the following startling confess- 
ion is recorded : " During the vear ending June 30, 1885, 15,538 women were furnished vvitn 
work at home, and the amount paid to these women for the whole year was $5U,362," or 
at the average of $33.10 a year of 313 working days, equal to 10 3-5 cents per day. 

This is signed by the President and Secretary of the league. 

This is the best opportunity that has ever been afforded the working people; 
to test the question of the influence of taxation on the rate of wages.. If 
the manufacturers fail to go to their workmen and tell them that their wages, 
are increased at least one-half, then the tariff is not to protect labor. 

Those who assert that the tax makes the rate of wages can see nothing in free^ 
institutions, free lands, fertile soil, a fr.iendly climate, rich deposits, and a strong- 
muscle directed by a clear brain. If these things are of no effect, then America, 
was discovered only that the world might behold on a larger scale a repetition of 
the misery and degradation with which it has so long been familiar. 

We produce only 4.5 per cent, of our manufactured goods by hand. England 
alone equals us in this ; but England employs a great number of women and child- 
ren in her industries, as do all " pauper labor " countries. England and the United 
States employ about the same number of mechanics, men, women and children. 
The proportion of men employed is far below the proportion in this country. 
According to the report of the tariff commission of 1882, the total number of 
mechanics in each country is 5,000,000. But in America the product turned out by 
these mechanics annually is worth $8,000,000,000; the English product is $4,000,- 
000,000, or half as much. The most rabid protectionist does not claim that we pay^ 
twice the wages that England pays, though of course we ought to do so. In many^ 
branches of industry we pay less than England pays, and 20 per cent, difference- 
in our favor is an extravagant allowance. 

Yet England controls the markets of the world with her products, gives steady 
employment to her labor, while trusts and combinations are unknown there, as 
they were unknown here before the tariff system made them possible. 

England gets her raw materials free and she can therefore pay her labor a 
larger wages in proportion to her product. Here a part of what should go to labor 
is eaten up in the cost of materials. The cost of production is kept as low as. 
possible, and as wages and materials constitute the main cost, one or both must be 
kept down Materials can not be kept down when they are taxed. Labor can be,, 
and is. It has been so often shown that high wages and low cost of production gO' 
together that the figures will not be set out in extenso here. 

Mr. Wells, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Schoenhof, Secretaries Blaine and Evarts and. 
• an innumerable host of writers have shown this over and over again. The expla- 
nation is simple: The man that can produce in a given time goods worth $10 gets 
higher wages than the man who produces only half as much. The man that ope- 
rates a machine, producing goods worth $100 gets better wages than the man work- 
ing with his hands and hand tools and producing goods worth only $5. Such is. 
the situation to-day. America, ever alert to avail herself of the inventions of 
genius, is operating machines of the best patterns ; other countries are working by- 



280 ^ DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

hand or operating inferior machines. The conservatism of England and the of 
world would have to retire before the irresistible force of American enterprise if 
that enterprise were rid of its shackles. It is not necessary to go off the railroads 
of Europe to behold the difference in the spirit that dominates the industry of 
those countries and this. Compare the railway coach of Europe to the splendid 
vestibule trains of America. There behold the illustration of the methods of the 
two continents. It is so in almost every branch of industry. England uses the 
best machinery used in Europe, yet as the tariff commission showed in its report, 
by reason of the inferiority of this machinery and the employment of women and 
children, her product is only half what ours is. 

It is useless to argue about the other countries of Europe, England is the 
industrial and commercial mistress of them all, yet the difference between her 
wages and theirs is greater than between hers and ours. If it is shown that we can 
compete with her, the other countries need not be taken into consideration, and if 
the facts already stated and to follow do not show that we can compete with her 
when we have equal advantages as to raw materials, it is useless to resort to reason 
on the wage question. 

It is of value to learn what proportion of labor and materials go into our pro- 
ducts and the difference between the per cent, of each and the rate of duty. 
Elaboration is unnecessary. The following table and extracts are from the speech 
of Senator Coke of Texas : 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



281 



-d «^ a o 



°-5 



o s-^ 



2i: 

5 a> 



_l^ t-i ■**< rH Oi OD CO O 0<l 05o^t-p5 












OOr-liS r-( 



35 rH toco OO 






•hTo-^so" r4" «d"eo"o5od oTcoeo" 

^^^t- O ■<*< « 56 i-H rH kO @ 
COOrH-* Iti ri OO 35 CO iq.r=l oS 

j^'^'ofg to" oT^'ufcojHg'^- 



»A«O00rH O t-^lftoft-TccTcdl 



ai 



OOgH »o 



Ills i §iSi III 
s § s¥ ^ s ^'s s's ^'1" 






3S 

flfl 
eSog 



-d 
o 
o 



11 






§^a 



13 S a> 

Sag 



43 43 03 C3 



•■S o . . .^^^ 

fl O . M . O 3 , 

'2 ^ oo-""^ o o 
K ai43d OJ ii i> 



■^ *-• 






36 



282 - DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOJL. 

He repeats this from a former speech, made by him : 

In estimating the difference between American and European wages, it must be borne 
In mind that only 4^ per cent, of our manufactured products are made by hand labor, the 
Ijalance being made by steam and machinery. England is the only country in Europe 
making the same low per cent, by hand labor, while Austria makes 29 per cent., Italy 34 
per cent., Spain 23 per cent., and Portugal 42 per cent, by hand labor. 

It is admitted on ail sides that we are twenty-five years ahead of the most advanced 
nations in Europe in mechanical appliances and labor-saving machinery, through which 
manufactures are so much cheapened. Nor must the fact be overlooked, adverted to a 
moment ago, that England is the only other country in the world possessing an equal 
concentration of capital with this. I read on this point from Wealth and Progress, by Mr. 
George Gunton, a recent publication of great ability and merit, as follows : 

" In this country and in England, where the concentration of capital is the greatest in 
the world, the productive capacity per capita is nearly two and a half times that of the 
average in continental countries, five times as large as that of Italy, Spain and Portugal, 
and twelve times that of China and India, and the income per capita is about thirteen 
times as great as that of India and China, six times that of Italy, Spain and Portugal, and 
more than twice that of the average on the European continent, and the general ra,te of 
wa^es in England is ten times that of Asia, and nearly double that of continental Europe, 
while in this country it is about fifteen times that of Asia, and within a fraction of three 
times that of the average on the Continent. 

Senator Coke continues : " Mr. President, England's wages are ten times those 
'Of Asia, nearly double those of continental Europe, while ours are only fifteen times 
those of Asia, and within a fraction of three times the average on the continent. Eng- 
land scours all the seas of the world for her raw material and carries it home in 
lier ships. She sends to America for our cotton, she searches the world for the 
bread and meat to feed her operatives, and pays the wages I have stated, in the 
jnidst of the pauper labor of Europe, and undersells all Europe in their own 
anarkets." 

''The same author says that in India, with wages at 60 to 70 cents a week, the capital 
invested in production is only about $35 per head of the population. In Russia, with wages 
at $3.60 per week, it is $190 per capita. In Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, with wages 
at $3.76, it is $350 per capita. In Germany, with wages $3.84, it is $540 per capita. In 
France, with wages at $5, the capital invested is about $1,010 per capita, and in England, 
with wages at $7.74 per week, it is $1,300 per capita. England lives unde.' absolute free 
trade, pays the highest wages of any country in the world outside of the United States, 
and by reason of her concentration of capital and her machinery, in the first of which she 
is fully equaled and in the last greatly surpassed by the United States, instead of asking 
protection against the pauper labor of her neighbors, undersells them in their now 
markets." 

This table, taken from the last census, shows the relation of wages to product 
in all our manufacturing industries : 

Value of Product $5,369,667,706 

Value of material $3,394,340,029 

Value of annual wages 947,919,674 

4,342,259,703 

Excess of value of product over material and wages 1,027,408,003 

The material question as to wages is, the effect of the tariff. It makes no dif- 
ference whether wages are higher or lower in one place than in another so far as 
this question is concerned ; for the matter of moment is, does the tariff control the 
rate ? The debate in this Congress shows many valuable speeches on the tariff and 
wages that will repay careful reading. Extract from some may be given. 

Senator Turpie, of Indiana, said in the course of his remarks, September 10, 
after pointing out the fact that we have always had higher wages here than they 
have in Europe, under every sort of tariff, and that labor organizations result bene- 
ficially : 

" I am willing to have this right, the right to quit, the right and power to quit, 
left to its free exercise; I am willing to pit it against all the baneful influences and 
pernicious interests fostered by the pending bill. I am -willing to pit it against 
amonopoly and gainst monopolists. It will in course of time overthrow them all 
with irrecoverable ruin. I am willing to pit it agai<nst anything except that combina- 



TARIFF TAXATION. 283^ 

tion of sword and purse known in the most absolute of governments. There it will 
fail, and that is the reason why wages in some parts of the world have never 
advanced and never will. They are kept down by military despotism. The right 
to quit is denied and its exercise is made penal. The plain and severe simplicity 
of government by the saber is not inconsistent with a government republican in 
form. 

" I think there are some symptons of its approach here, not in the names of 
things, not in the ordinary routine of things, not in the titles, but we know that, 
the worst Caesar had himself elected, installed, inducted as consul, and was ex- 
tremely scrupulous in performing all the services and ceremonies of the free repub- 
lic which had died centuries before. 

" Nothing can affect that right ; nothing can affect that sacred appeal which 
labor has made so often. We may not approve sometimes of its exercise, we may 
not approve the circumstances which lead to it, or the motives which incite it, or 
the consequences which follow it ; but the right itself and its exercise must be^ 
commended, must be maintained, if we are to have a free people in a free country.. 

" The advocates and supporters of this bill say, what has been so often re- 
peated, that wages are much higher in this country than 4n Europe. That is nO' 
secret. If it is, it is a very open secret. But the use which these monopolists 
would make of that fact is a hidden mystery; one carefully laid away in ambush.. 
They desire — and I speak now of the subterranean powers at the base of this kind 
of legislation ; I am making no charge upon members of this body except as to 
their misconception of those powers — those powers know that wages are higher 
here than elsewhere. They assert it. TTiey know that tliey can not undertake for w 
moment uith any chances of success, an effort to reduce loages here. They can not im- 
port W)or by labor contracts. That is forbidden. They can not bring in among us- 
the Chinaman or tlie cooly. That is prohibited. What then remains? There remains- 
no course open except to pay the wages as fixed, but to take care when they are paid that 
they shall be recouped by taxation. 

"The bill is a bill of attainder against wages. It attaches the wages in the > 
laborer's hands where it is tolled in the interest of monopoly. A bill in every way 
calculated to diminish the means of subsistence of labor, and therefore the means 
of resistence by labor to the wrong and injury with which it is always threatened, 
by the reduction of the price of it wages. 

" The tariff monopolist pays no wages — not a penny. He expends the money 
which is used in their payment, but the whole amount is by him immediately- 
charged over to the consumer who pays all. 

" There is no other way of accounting for one of the leading features of this^ 
bill often alluded to, placing of excessive rates upon articles of necessity and. 
those in most common use. The object is to reduce by a levy en masse upon the 
wages of the American workmen, admitted, conceded, by these monopolists to be; 
too high. In fact, it is claimed very seriously by the monopolist that the wages of 
labor in the United States are so high as to interfere materially with the industrial' 
interests of the country or threaten them with great loss or entire destruction. 

" The claim is utterly false. There can be no foundation for it. It is simply 
based upon the avarice of corporations. More than two-thirds of the laborers of 
the United States, the people who work with their hands, are the employes of 
corporations. There is not in such employment a man-to-man feeling, a meeting- 
of flesh and blood, no consideration of conscience, of social fellowship, and of the 
wants and necessities of life above a bare animal subsistence. These things are alL 



284 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Mdden in the resolution of the board and the action of the committee of the 
company. That artificial creature acts without responsibility, and in a great many 
instances without notice. It is this conspiracy of these artificial beings who de- 
mand that the wages of the American laborer shall be reduced, and this whole bill 
in its drift, trend, and tendency looks to the benefit of wares, not wages. The 
whole debate has been of wares, not a word of wages. It looks to the benefit and 
advancement of shares, trusts, and dividends of these artificially created monopolies 
which I have mentioned. There is no aspect in which it can be regarded that is 
not in deadly hostility to the interest of labor. The true prosperity of manufactures 
requires a just recompense to labor with no farthing of needless tax or burden." 

Senator Carlisle said : 

" In my judgment, there is no weaker argument in the whole catalogue of the 
protectionist arguments than this which maintains that free trade or lower rates of 
duty would equalize the rates of wages in this and other countries. 

" We hear this argument over and over again, notwithstanding the industrial 
iistory of the whole civilized world refutes it. England is a free trade country 
and France is a protectionist country. They are divided only by a narrow chan- 
uel which can be crossed in two hours. Their people are engaged in substantially 
the same occupations, and there is an immense volume of trade between them, and 
yet the wages are not the same in free trade England as they are in protective 
France. 

" England is a free trade country and Germany is a high protective country. 
Their people are engaged, to a large extent, as the French and the English people 
are, in the same occupations, and there is a great trade between them. They inter- 
change their products to the amount of millions of dollars annually ; and yet their 
rates of wages have not been equalized. Moreover, they are all densely populated 
countries with old civilizations and great armies of laborers, while in this country 
we have a new civilization with immense tracts of fertile land open to the settle- 
ment of the people and thousands of avocations in which they can profitably en- 
gage ; and yet we are constantly having the rates of wages in this new and sparsely 
settled country compared with the rates of wages in these old and densely popu- 
lated countries instead of comparing the rates of wages existing in these various 
old countries where substantially the same condition of affairs exists. 

"Moreover, Mr. President, the framers of the Constitution of the United 
States more than one hundred years ago wisely provided for absolute free trade 
between all the States that then composed or should thereafter compose the Ameri- 
can Union. The Union consists now of forty-four great States, inhabited by 
65,000,000 industrious and enterprising people engaged in every occupation to 
which the human hand can be put or machinery can be applied. The trade be- 
tween these'States is larger by thousands of millions of dollars than could ever 
exist between this and all the other countries of the world if we had absolute 
free trade 

' These interchanges of products are made between the peoples of these forty- 
four States with absolute freedom. The products of Ohio go into Pennsylvania 
and New York, and are sold without any duty or any obstruction whatever. The 
products of Pennsylvania and New York go into Ohio and Kentucky and Missouri, 
and are sold without any duties whatever ; and yet this absolute free trade between 
forty-four States and 65,000,000 industrious people has not equalized the rates of 
wages in this country. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 285 

"If free trade in England, and protection in France, just across the Channel, 
iave not equalized the rates of wages there, and if absolute free trade in forty- 
four States of the American Union has not equalized the rates of wages here, upon 
what foundation does the Senator base his proposition that free trade or lower 
rates of duty between the United States and England, or Germany or France, 
•3,000 miles across the ocean, will equalize the rates of wages here and there ? 

" Let any Senator who doubts the facts in regard to this matter take up the 
report of the Commissioner of Labor for 1886, in which the accomplished head of 
thai bureau examines the rates of wages in every State of the union in a large 
number of protected occupations, and shows a difference in the rates in the various 
States ranging from 20 to 100 per cent. The rates of wages in a woolen factory, 
for instance, in a certain part of the labor carried on in the establishment, are not 
the same in New Jersey that they are in New York, an adjoining State, nor the 
same in New Hampshire that they are in Connecticut or in Vermont. 

" I repeat the proposition with which I started out, that there is no greater 
fallacy in all the arguments made by our friends on the other side than the assump- 
tion — for it is a mere assumption — that the free interchange of products between 
the various countries of the world will equalize the rates of wages. We have 
higher wages than exist in any other country in the world, perhaps, I believe abso- 
lutely, than any other country. They ought to be higher, and they always will be 
higher, whether you have free trade, a low tariff, or a high protective tariff. 

" Our laborers are more skillful, more intelligent, and, therefore, more efficient 
in the prosecution of their callings than the laborers of any other country on the 
face of the earth. They are more sober, industrious, take more interest in the 
business of their employers, and produce more according to the compensation they 
receive, than the laborers anywhere else in the world. So long, Mr. President, as 
we have this great country sparsely inhabited, with industrial and business avenues 
open everywhere upon which the young and enterprising men of our country can 
enter, we shall have wages higher here than in the densely populated countries of 
the old world. 

" The Senator from Missouri (Mr. Cockrell) calls my attention to the difference 
between the rates of wages in France, England and Germany. Of course everybody 
understands that there is a great difference in the rates of wages paid in those 
different countries ; but I do not propose now to go into the details. Wages are 
liigher in England generally than they are in any other country in Europe, and 
jet England has absolutely free trade in all those articles which compete with her 
own domestic productions, and collects her revenue from customs upon articles 
that do not compete. 

*' Mr. President, I have said that wages are higher here and always will be 
Mgher, no matter whether we have free trade or low tariff or protection, and this 
proposition, I think, is true, unless under the operation of unequal and unjust class 
legislation we shall ultimately reach that point where men of moderate means who 
are now engaged in business on their own account become so oppressed and 
harrassed by the large establishments doing business of the same kind as to drive 
them out oi business and compel them to join the grand army of laborers who are 
seeking work for wages. 

" Whenever we reach that point under the operation of these laws the inevi- 
table tendency ol which, as everybody knows, is to crush the little establishments 
and build up the great ones — whenever we reach a point where the small estab- 
lishments, now conducted by proprietors who contribute their own labor along 



286 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



with the labor of their employ"ed hands, are all driveu out of business, and com- 
pelled themselves to seek work from others, then wages will fall in this country as 
low as they are in England, or in France, or Germany, and the other countries 
where they have a distinct laboring class out of business themselves, unable to go- 
into business themselves, and compelled to work for whatever the great establish- 
ments are willing to pay them. 

"I warn Senators now that if this policy shall be persisted in for another 
quarter of a century we are at least in great danger of reaching that very point 
and being compelled to confront that very condition of affairs. Look at your 
census reports and you will find that the number of your manufacturing establish- 
ments decreases with each decade. Their output increases, but the number of 
establishments decreases. The class of men to whom I referred a moment ago are 
being crushed out, and instead of carrying on business for themselves they are 
now being forced into the market to sell their labor to these great establishments^ 
and that process will go on, if this system is maintained, until, as I have said, we 
reach the point where all the independent men now carrying on business on their 
own account will become wage-laborers ; then wages will fall here. 

The English tariff referred to by Senator Carlisle is as follows : 

In 1888, England's customs duties were $97,897,380, and over $23,000,000 of which amount- 
to be entirely accurate, $23,066,560— was levied on tlie single article of tea, nearly $1,000,000 
on coffee, $1,587,553 on currants, $355,060 on chicory, $883,000 on raisins, $414,707 on cocoa, 
$25,790 on prunes, and $146,220 on figs. The following are the articles now on England's 
dutiable list and the amount collected from each : 





Articles. 


Amount collected. 


• 


English 
money. 


American 
money. 


% 




£10,213 
71,012 

82,940 

187,562 

317,511 

29,244 

9,746 

10,122 

5,158 

176,696 

2,034,286 

1,307,817 

125,510 

7.56,733 

4,613,312 

8,713,943 

1,085,646 

2,1.59 

32,420 


$ 51,065 
a55,060' 
414,707 
937,8«> 

1,587,555 

146,220 

48 730 




Chicory 






^ .1 




' 


Cui'rants 


■ 


Figs 


>• 


Plate 




T*lurnes . . 


50 610 




^PruiKS 


25,790 


4 


iT jiaisins 


883 480 


■ Spirits: 


10,171,430 




Tlra ndv 


6,539,085 




Geneva . • 


627,550 






3,783,66s 




^ga . • 


23,066,560 






43^9,715 


Jif' 


Wine 


6,428,230 


r 


A 11 other 


10,795 


t 




162,100 






Y 


The following was compiled in accordance with Mr. 


Carlisle's ref 


erence : 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



287 



Table showing different rates of wages paid in same occupations in various localities in 
the United States^ compiled from First Annual Report of the United States Com- 
missioner of Labor, 1886. , 



EMPLOYMENTS. 



Agricultural Implements — 

Foremen 

Foremen 

Moulders 

Moulders 

Painters 

Painters 

Boots and Shoes- 
Burnishers 

Buffers 

Foremen 

<Jarriages and Wagons— 

Blacksmiths 

Blacksmiths' Helpers.. 

Painters 

Clothing Makers- 
Cutters 

Laborers 

Engineers 

Coal, Coke and Ore— 

Blacksmiths 

Blacksmiths 

Drivers 

Drivers 

Mine Bosses 

Cotton Goods— 

Beamers 

Beamers 

Carders 

Carders 

Card Strippers 

Card room hands 

Drawers 

Dyers 

Engineers 

Engineers 

Folders 

Polders 

Inspectors 

Inspectors 

Overseers 

Overseers 

Packers 

Packers 

Packers 

Rovers 

Scrubbers 

Mule Spinners. 



State. 



Indiana 

Kentucky 

Indiana 

Pennsylvania. 

Maine 

Ohio 



Maryland . 
New York. 
New York. 



New Jersey — 
Pennsylvania.. 
Ohio 



Pennsylvania . . 

New York 

New York 



Indiana . 
Indiana . 
Indiana . 
Virginia 
Missouri . 



New York 

Maryland 

Delaware 

New Hampshire. 

Connecticut 

Georgia 

Georgia 

North Carolina.. 

New Jersey 

North Carolina.. 
Massachusetts ... 

Georgia 

Massachusetts . . . 
New Hampshire. 

Virginia 

Massachusetts . . . 

Maine 

Maine 

North Carolina.. 
North Carolina.. 
New Hampshire. 
Georgia 



Mule Spinners Connecticut 



South Carolina. . 
North Carolina. 



New Jersey . . . 
New Jersey . . . 
Pennsylvania. 

California 

Ohio 



Weavers 
Weavers 
Windou}— 

Blowers 

Cutters 

Flatteners 

Mixers 

Mixers 

Metals and Metallic Goods- 
Ore Breakers 

Ore Breakers 

Cindermen 

Foremen 

Hammermen 

Heaters 

Millwrights 

Millwrights 

Pattern Makers Undiana 

Filers Kentucky 

Puddlers iOhio 



Virginia 

Tennessee 

Alabama 

Missouri 

New York 

Delaware 

New York 

Ohio. 



. 


Oi 


iD 


«3 


^ 


$2 39 


300 


1 75 


1 80 


150 


180 


150 


140 


2 43 


1 92 


95 


139 


103 


96 


1 48 


169 


169 


1 40 


75 


2 88 


125 


79 


83 


96 


90 


85 


68 


75 


200 


140 


86 


72 


100 


83 


1 87 


2 85 


100 


1 00 


89 


75 


56 


85 


162 


92 


75 


4 80 


4 13 


4 47 


350 


1 76 


100 


90 


140 


200 


225 


300 


2 15 


2 27 


3 25 


200 


164 



State. 



Illinois 

Pennsylvania... 

Illinois 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania... 
Pennsylvania... 

Illinois 

Pennsylvania... 
California 

Connecticut 

Connecticut 

Pennsylvania . . . 

New York 

New Jersey 

New Jersey 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania... 

Missouri 

Missouri 

Indiana 

Pennsylvania... 
Pennsylvania... 
Massachusetts.. . 
Massachusetts . . 

Delaware 

New Hampshire 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Vermont 

Vermont 

Maine 

Maine 

New York 

New York 

Georgia 

New Hampshire 

Maryland 

Pennsylvania... 
Pennsylvania... 

New York 

Maine 

Delaware 

Delaware 

Connecticut 

Massachusetts . . 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Illinois 

Kentucky 

Kentucky 

New York 

New York 

T*ennsylvania... 

Cal, and Del 

Kentucky 

West Virginia... 

Kentucky 

Kentucky 

Illinois 

Pennsylvania... 
Illinois 






5£ 



$3 25 

4 00 
3 19 
3 51 
2 50 

2 50 

3 00 
2 50 

5 00 

2 76 
1 75 
233 

1 97 
1 50 

3 25 



2 41 

3 00 
3 00 

3 50 

2 00 

2 00 
126 
126 
1 33 
1 73 
162 
1 .50 

4 33 
4 33 
1 42 
1 42 
1 50 
1 50 

3 43 

4 15 

1 45 

2 18 
2 18 
125 

85 
2 50 

2 50 
1 17 
1 13 

6 25 

5 55 

6 25 

3 00 

3 00 

133 

1 33 
203 

4 00 
4 13 

4 50 

5 00 
5 00 
3 10 
300 

2 25 



1.00 

.80 

1.05 

.43 

.84 
.67 

.91 

.56 

1.13 

.24 
.42 
.43 
1.66.^ 
.21 



1.53 
.51 
.31 

.47 
1.03 

.,50 , 
1.00 
1.16X 
2.09 

.67 

.97 

.50 

.88 

.83>^ 

.45^ 









1.45 

.66^' 
.51 
1.94^- 
.54 
.27 
.50 






.30 
.34 
.40 
.20 



^> 



.70 

.33 

.48 

.45 
1.00 

.17 K 

.50 
1.32 
1.22 I 

.37X I 

.50 ^ 



4' 

>5 






288 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



« EMPLOYMENTS. 



Printworks— 

Emgravers 

E||gravers — 

Engravers — 

Foremen 

Tohacco— 

Cigarmakers . . 

Cutters 

Cutters 

Cutters 

Engineers 

Foremen 

Foremen 

Packers 

Stemmers 

Wrappers 

Woolen Goods- 
Boilers 

Boilers 

Carders 

Carders 

Carders 

Dyers 

Engineers 

Finishers 

Finishers 

Finishers 

Giggers 

Laborers 

Loomfixers . . . 

Loomfixers . . . 

Machinists 

Machinists 

Machinists — 

Pickers 

Pickers 

Pickers 

Scourers 

Scourei*s 

Scourers 

Mule Spinners 

Mule Spinners 

Weavers 

Wool Sorters.. 

Wool Sorters.. 



State. 



New Jersey 

New Jersey 

New Jersey 

New York 

Ohio 

Illinois 

Kentucky 

North Carolina. 

Illinois 

Michigan 

Michigan 

North Carolina. 

Virginia 

Missouri 

New York 

North Carolina. 

Vermont 

Vermont 

Vermont 

Massachusetts . . 

Maine 

California 

Calif ctt-nia 

New Jersey 

Massachusetts . . 

California 

Massachusetts . . 
North Carolina. 

Maine 

Maine 

Vermont 

Penna. and N. J 
Penna. and N J 
Penna. and N. J 

California 

California 

California 

North Carolina. 
North Carolina. 

New York 

California 

New Jersey 



2 00 
2 00 

2 00 

3 00 

1 52 
1 98 

1 50 
61 

2 50 
2 00 
2 00 

60 
54 



70 

50 

100 

1 00 

1 00 

1 13 

1 50 

1 00 

100 

75 

97 

1 00 

1 90 
82 

200 

2 00 
1 78 
1 00 
100 
1 00 
1 00 
1 00 
1 00 
1 25 
125 
1 08 
125 

80 



State. 



Massachusetts . 
Pennsylvania... 
New Hampshire 
Pennsylvania... 

Connecticut 

Missouri 

Missouri , 

Virginia — , — 

Missouri 

Illinois 

Missouri 

Connecticut 

Illinois 

Missouri 

Massachusetts . . 
Massachusetts . . 

Connecticut 

Indiana 

Ky. and Cal 

Delaware 

Iowa 

Delaware 

Missom'i 

Missouri 

Pennsylvania. . . 

Iowa 

Pennsylvania... 
Pennsylvania... 

Delaware 

Missouri 

Delaware 

Indiana 

Maryland 

Delaware 

Massachusetts . . 

Delaware 

Pennsylvania... 
New Hampshire 

Delaware 

Pennsylvania . . . 

Iowa 

Iowa — 



225 

333 

2 33 

1 00 

3 91 

2 97 
2 75 
333 

93 
2 00 



.37 



1.14 



^nator McPhebson said : 



^ro 



" I find that protective duties pay different wages even in New England States, 
and that in Maine the average wages are $257 a year ; in Massachusetts, $364 a year ; 
in Connecticul, $385 a year. 

" If we consult the census of 1880, we find unskilled wages in blast furnaces to 
be, in Virginia, 82 cents per day; in Alabama, 98 cents; in Pennsylvania, $1.29; 
that skilled labor receives in Alabama, $2.25 ; in Massachusettes, $2.70 ; in Pennsyl- 
vania, $3.03 ; in Ohio, $3.87, and in Kentucky, $4.62. Tennessee is not placed in 
this list of 1880, but the very marked development in the use of machinery since 
then has caused investigations to show an average rate. By sections the yearly 
average wages are : Eastern States, $417 ; Western, $396 ; Pacific, $354, and South- 
ern, $304. It is not, therefore, protective duties that affect the wages of labor. If 
that cause alone operated, or operated even chiefly, in fixing the price of labor, 
there would not be such different results in different States in the same industries 
and in every section of the country. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



289 



" It has been wisely said that ' when two employers run after one workman, 

wages rise : and when two workmen run after one employer, wages fall ; ' and, Mr. 

President, that single sentence tells more of the rise of all the wages of labor than 

can be proven by any reasoning on the effect of high duties." 
*** * * * * * * * * 

Again, referring to the assertion that the tariff regulates wages : 
" And to the man who looks into that absurdity he will be almost amazed at 

another, for the Ways and Means Committee say : 

Those who advocate duties for revenue solely see only as a result of their theory 

cheaper prices of wares and merchandise, and are blind to the other necessary effect, that 

of lower wages and cheaper men. 

" If that sentence has any meaning whatever— which I do not assert— it is 
that the less price one pays for provisions and clothes the more expensive is living, 
and that the cheaper the cost of necessaries the cheaper are the buyers. 

" I find a similar thought embodied in a speech accredited to General Harrison, 
in March, 1888. He says : 

I am one of those uninstructed political economists that have an impression tha- 
some things may be too cheap, that I cannot find myself in full sympathy with this det 
mand for cheaper coats, which seems to me necessarily involves a cheaper man ana 
woman under the coat. 

Many writers have shown that the history of the world is counter to the im- 
pression of this " uninstructed political economist," who goes to the vinnecessary 
trouble of telling us he is uninstructed. Among authorities Edward ^ kinson's. 
*' Industrial Progress " demonstrates that as prices have gone down wages have 
gone up. Improved methods of production always produce this result. 

The foregoing are suflBcient to show the absurdity of the claim that Competitioii 
in products with other nations will level the rate of wages here to the rate paid 
abroad. We have here the most absolute free trade and in some of the localities 
named the rate is much lower than it is in almost any country in Europe ; that is 
to say, the rate per day or per week is lower. The exact situation would be, if we 
had even free trade, which no party advocates, that we should have the advantage 
of every other country in the world, in that we should obtain free raw materials to 
be manipulated by our superior productive forces. The tables given are a demon- 
stration of the material question. The tariff does not regulate the rate of wages. 
If it did, we should have the same rate throughout the country. 

If it has any effect this table shows what the effect is. The table is taken from 
the report of the bureau of statistical information of the State of Illinois : 



Protected occupations. 



Weekly wages. 



1880. 



Pt^-d 



Brush-makers. 

Cloak-factory workers. 

Coal-miners 

Confectioners 

Iron and steel workers 

Iron-molders 

Organ-builders 

Paper-mill operatives. 

Salt-laborers 

Shoemakers 

Tinners 

Zinc -factory men 



$12 00 

14 75 
12 02 
18 86 
41 10 
16 43 

15 00 

12 00 

13 20 
12 30 
12 90 
25 00 



$10 80 

11 75 

8 02 

12 14 
36-50 
14 41 
12 00 

10 05 
12 00 

9 90 

11 25 
18 75 



The above table shows an average decrease of 18 per cent. 
37 



290 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



TMs view is more conclusively demonstrated to be correct when we find from 
the same source of information that whereas there was a decrease between 1880 
and 1886 in the price of wages in protected occupations, there was a large increase 
of wages during the same period in the unprotected occupations. 



Unprotected occupations. 



Weekly wages. 


1880. 


1886. 


$19 05 


$20 10 


13 50 


19 15 


900 


1150 


14 25 


15 75 


700 


8 50 


13 50 


15 75 


9 00 


12 00 


18 00 


24 00 


18 00 


21 60 


10 25 


13 01 


18 00 


23 50 


12 00 


14 25 



COT 

O (D 

Ph5 



Bricklayers aud stone-masons 

Electrotypers 

Hod-carriers 

Slate-roofers 

Press-feeders 

Stair-builders 

Steam-fitter helpers 

Stone-block pavers 

.Stone-cutters 

.Street-railway employes 

Wooden-block pavers 

Wood-turners 



This is an average increase of 27 per cent. 

This table shows another universal fact : that wages in " protected " industries 
are lower than in those that are not so favored, demonstrating that the mere fact 
that the employer is making large profits, does not prove that his employees are 
getting rich. He does not divide the spoils. 

I>oe» tlie Tariff Increase Prices. 

The interest of the farmer and laborer in the tariff does not cease with the de- 
termination of the effect on income. It extends to the outgo. 

In the course of the discussion of the McKinley bill many instances of Repub- 
lican confessions that the tariff is a tax, were cited incidentally. Hundreds could 
be added. But there are some gems in the report of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. Incidentally in reading them it will be observed that the bill makes the 
wise provision that when the Government imports or has anything imported for 
its own use, it shall take the amount of the duty out of one pocket and put it in 
another. This will give the bookkeepers a job. 

Here are the gems : 

" The present provision in the free list for ar1)icles imported for the use of the 
United States, provided that the price of the same did not include tJie duty, is omit- 
ted in the proposed revision." 

"It is unwise to remit duties when the money goes neither into the public treasury 
nor the pockets of our own peopled 

*********** 

'• The Government ought not to buy abroad what it can buy at nome. Nor 
should it be exempted from tlie laws it imposes tqwn its citizens^ 

Now, if anything can be plainer than these statements, it is difficult to see how 
it could be made so. 

1. The provision of the present law is explicit that a contractor, unless he 
spc:;ifies in his contract that the price to be paid by the Government (the consumer) 
i ; t > include the duty, no duty need be paid. If the price does include the duty, the 
a\v.[ : must be paid and then the Government refunds the tax as apart of the price. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 291 

2. This second statement is such a bald concession of the claim that the tariff 
puts money in " the pockets of our own people " — the manufacturers, that it is a 
settlement of the question. 

3. The third, like the first, shows that the tariff law "imposes" a tax^ 

To make this still clearer, the following, which immediately precedes the second 

statement, is perfectly satisfactory to the friends of low taxes : 

The remission of duty in such cases Is in effect a premium offered the foreigner to 
compete with the honest importer who pays duty, as also with the domestic producer. 

How can it possibly offer the foreigner a premium to compete with an honest 
importer ? Simply by allowing him to sell his article to the consumer ^f or a price 
that is smaller by the amount of the duty than it would have been if he had paid 
the duty. The committee was here speaking of the fraudulent importations made 
upon the pretense that the goods were for the Government when they were actually 
sold to private persons. 

How does it offer a premium to the foreigner to compete with the domestic 
producer ? Simply by permitting him to import his goods and sell them at a price 
that is smaller by the amount of the duty than it would have been if he had paid 
the duty, while the domestic producer sells his product at a higher price, and thus 
puts money in " the pockets of our own people." 

This is clear and explicit. It is what the Democratic party has always said and 
it is all it has ever said on this subject. 

Here, then, are the two admissions : 

1. When imported goods pay the duty, the amount of the duty is recouped 
in the price of the goods to the consumer. 

2. When the domestic producer sells his domestic product he adds something 
to the price at which the goods could have been bought from the foreigner if the 
foreigner had sent his goods here free of duty. Iherefore the tariff is a tax. 

Bearing this in mind, see what the taxes are that this bill imposes on American 
consumers. 

This book is not intended to be an advertising medium, but as the merchants 
throughout the country are circulating advertisements in which they show the 
effect the tariff bill is going to have on prices, perhaps to better satisfaction than a 
mere statement of any one else would show it, these selections are inserted gratis. 
The first is from the speech of Senator Gray : 

" There was sent to me the other day an advertisement that was diplayed in the 
street cars of Philadelphia, one of which I saw myself, which, whatever may be 
said here, shows that those who are concerned in the distribution of these articles 
of common necessity feel by an instinct as unerring as it is intelligent and signifi- 
cant that this enormous increase of duty on woolen goods is going to be a burden 
to the consumers of the country. Here it is just as it was and is displayed in the 
advertising spaces of these public cars : 

The 

MCKINLEY TARIFF BILL 

Doubles the Ddtv on 

FOREIGN HOSIERY. 

No change in prices with us 

AS YET. 

Cook & Brother, 
49, 51 and 53 N. Eighth st. 

The second It was issued to the customers of the firm : 

Grand Rapids, Mich., September 9, 1890. 
Gentlemen : As important and rather radical advances in prices of some articles in 
the hardware line are daily talcing place, we wish to say a few words so you may ::;2ore 
fuUy understand the situation and not think that the Jobber is over-charging you. 



292 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK 



There is now but one ax company in the United States, and that is called the Ameri- 
can Ax and Tool Company, with headquarters at Pittsburgh. This company has pur- 
chased outright every ax factory in the country of any importance, and by thus con- 
trolling the production have advanced prices on an average of $2.00 a dozen. This 
company also controls the manufacture of ax polls (or the heads of axes), the machinery 
of which is patented, and this enables them to keep the price on polls so high no one else 
can afford to make axes. 

SAWS— HAND AND CROSS-CUT. 

In this industry the same forces have been at work, and to-day there are but two 
companies who manufacture hand saws, where there were a dozen four months ago. 
Prices in this line of goods have been advanced from 10 to 40 per cent. In cross-cuts it is 
the same. By a consolidation of interests prices have been advanced from four to eight 
cents a foot. 

LEAD. 

Ever3rthing made of lead has taken a decided advance owing to recent decisions on the 
admittmg of Mexican ore into this country, as well as by combination of manufacturers. 
Shot, lead pipe, pig lead, solder, babbit metal, have all advanced and may go still higher. 
The passage of the Silver Bill will also effect all articles made of or coated with silver. In 
the hardware line plated hnives cmd forks, spoons, etc., will be effected and advances made. 

TIN. 

The present ta/riff on sheet tin is 1 cent a pound, and the McKinley Tariff bill, which no 
doubt will pass both Houses of Congress, advances the duty to 2 2-10 cents a pound. This 
must, of course, advance tin from $1.25 to $3.00 a box, according to the weight of said box. 
This advance in sheet tin will affect all articles of tinware, and advances will be made all 
along the line. 

Tin in New York has already advanced from 50 cents to $1.00 a box, and is growing 
stronger each day, as the certainty of the passage of the McKinley Tariff Bill becomes 
more assured. Not a box of tin is made in this country, notwithstanding which tin • 
has declined in price from $15 to $4.75 a box during the past twenty-flve years. 

GLASS. 

The window glass market of this country is practically in the hands of two large com- 
panies, who work in harmony as to prices, which has resulted in a steady advance for the 
past year, averaging about 30 per cent. 

ZINC OR STOVE BOARDS. 

The Adams & Westlake Co., A. I. Griggs, Sidney Shepard & Co., Palmer Manufacturing 
Co., H. Rendtorfl & Co., Central Stamping Co., W. H. Sweeney Manufacturing Co. All of 
the above-named firms were anxious for our business last year, but now they have all sold 
out to the American Stove Board Co., with offices in New York and Chicago, and a general 
advance on all lines has taken place. Last year you could buy a 28 inch square paper-lined 
zinc lor 36 cents ; this year the same thing costs you 73 cents, an advance of 100 per cent. 

AMMUNITION. 

The price Is controlled by a combination, and you have to pay the price or go without. 

POWDER. 

The same— but one price, and that nearly double what it was two years ago. 

SUMMARY. 

We Mi31 yow attention to these matters so you will understand why, on nearly every 
invoice you get, you will find something higher than it was before. 

The tendency of the times seem to be consolidation, thus enabling large corporations 
to produce the goods cheaper and and sell them at a higlier price. We fail to find, however, 
in all the consolidation of various Imes of goods, a single instance, notwithslandiug the 
advance they put on the goods, where they have advanced the pay of labor a cent. If the 
consumer who purchases last does not pay this increased cost we do not know who does. 
If he reaps any personal benefit from it, we would like to know where it comes in. This it 
not a political, but a fair statement of the condition of certain lines of business, as we 
daily come in contact with them. Foster, Stevens & Co., 

Hardware Merchants, Grand Rapids, Mich. 

This second is a four pa^e advertisement with cuts of the business houses of 
till,", firm on the front page. This firm has two establishments in Grand Rapids. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 293 

The last issue of the Dry Goods Economist says : 

The growing certainty that higher rates of duty would prevail has strengthened 
prices of all drv goods which will be affected by the new tariflf. Prices a/re now about 10 
per cent, higher than in A^^oust on all spot goods in which wool plays a prominent part as 
a raw material ; linens and knit fabrics have improved in the same ratio. 

A special telegram to the New York Tribune from Chicago says that Edison, 
Keith & Co. find that velvets, plushes, etc., are advanced about 33 per cent. 
The firm of Schoverling, Daly & Gales, New York, dealers in guns, have issued a 
circular, saying : 

The new tariff bill will advance the price of guns from 35 to 150 per cent. We, there- 
fore, advise our friends that it would pay them to purchase our goods early as we shall 
have to advance our prices when the bill goes into effect. 

This, too, from tke Springfield (Mass.) Bepublican, is exceedingly interesting 

The protection which the McKinley bill offers the people from a long and cold winter 
Just ahead, is made very clear in the published statements of thejChicago dry goods 
houses of John V. Farwell (a brother of the Illinois senator), Marshall Field & Co., and 
James H. Walker. Prices of imported wool goods, they say, costing fifty cents a yard, 
will be increased on account of the bill to eighty-nine cents, and the cheaper the quality 
the greatw will be the advance in prices. " The increased cost of the lower grades of 
foreign hosierv will be so enormous that it is really hard to forecast what effect will be 
had on prices'." But imported goods will not alone be affected by the bill, of course. 
Manufacturers have already announced an advance of ten per cent, on domestic wool 
dress goods, according to these authorities, and the higher prices on imported goods 
*' will affect all home goods, including wool, linen, and many fancy articles, such as em- 
broideries, lace curtains and gloves ; but the higher and richer grades of goods wiU be 
increased but little." This will not prove very cheerful news for anybody, and particu- 
larly for the poor, at the beginning of the cold season. But the Republican politicians 
must pay the campaign debt owing to the Pennsylvania monopolists, no matter what it 
■costs the people. 

It would be ungracious in the extreme in dealing with advertisements to omit 
the contribution to commercial literature of the one man that, above all others, 
has availed himself with remarkable foresight of every opportunity to place his 
wares before the public through the medium of the press. He is a man of religious 
3cruples, great personal honor and a cabinet minister under Mr. Harrison. He is 
therefore thorougly veracious and no hesitancy is felt about relying upon his state- 
ments, especially those pertaining to business matters ; and when his statements 
go to the public they have, of course, the authority of the administration behind 
them. 

The advertisement from which the quotation is made was published in various 
Philadelphia newspapers, but this extract was clipped from the Record of that city 
of date Tuesday, September 30, 1890, and was a " special" for that day. Like most 
of his advertisements, this is duly authenticated by his name at the end, showing 
that it rests upon his reputation and character as a business man as the guarantee 
of the verity of its contents. 

Here it is : 

Tinware is advancing in cost, and very soon the manufacturers will have their way 
and you and we will have to pay very much more. 

In view of this state of things, we made some time since a large purchase of kitchen 
tinware at what was a low price then, and would be far lower now in the face of two ad- 
vances in makers' price-lists. 

Rinsing pans, plain. 10 quart, 15 cents : 14 quart, 20 cents ; 17 quart, 25 cents. 

Dish pans, retinned. 10 quart, 25 cents ; 14 quart, 30 cents ; 17 quart, 35 cents. 

Bread raisers. 10 quart, with cover and ventilator in lid, 58 cents. 

Lipped saucepans. From 1 to 6 quart, 8, 10, 13, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 cents. 

Pie plates. 8 inch, 3 cents ; 9 inch, 3^ cents ; 10 inch, 4 cents. 

5 quart milk pans, 5 cents. 

Tin frame flour sieves, 9 cents. 

Large wash basins, 10 cents. 

Jelly moulds, 10, 15, 20, 25 cents. 

Tubed cake moulds, 10 cents. 

Cream cans, 1 quart, 10 cents. 

Covered buckets, 6 and 10 cents. 



294 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Oval butter kettles, 10, 15, 20 cents. 

Tea kettles, small, 20 cents. 

Japanned foot tubs, won'*^^ leak, 25 cents. 

Japanned slop pails, 25 cents. 

Japanned bread boxes, 45, 55, 65 cents. 

Japanned candlesticks, 5 cents. 

Jaa^anned nutmeg graters, 1 cent. 

Japanned nests of spice boxes, 30 cents. 

Japanned tea or coffee cadies, 8 cents. 

This lot goes on sale to-day at prices that will not be seen again for a long time to 
come. You will find it in the main aisle, basement. Ample arrangements are made for 
correct and prompt delivery. 

Basement, north of centre stairs. 

The bare facts are enough. 

John Wanamaker. 

There seems to be no reason to dissent from the last statement above the name 
of the Postmaster-General, though the Republican politicians will continue to 
insist, in spite of " the bare facts," that the tariff is not a tax. But against the 
Hepublican politicians there stands the Republican business man and cabinet 
minister. The latter is a member in best standing of the merchant-guild that col- 
lects the tariff tax in the increased price of the goods that the people buy, and he 
understands better than any one else what he and his fellow merchants are doing 
and are going to do. He has honestly stated the truth to his customers. " The 
bare facts are enough " — or ought to be, at any rate. 

The foregoing are mere examples of what is going on as to all sorts of goods 
covered by the tariff law. Examine the various trade papers and the market 
reports. 

Similar advertisements and hand bills are accessible to everybody, as they may 
be found in nearly all city papers or on the streets of the various towns and cities 
throughout the country. Any one may for himself verify these statements by in- 
specting his store accounts or by consulting the honest merchants in his vicinity as 
to prices. 

Verily, the tariff is a tax. 

Here is an interesting table showing the increases on the rates of tax levied 
on various articles by the McKinley bill: 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



295 



Table showing increase in rate of duties on many articles in common use. 



Articles. 



Oommon window glass, 10 by 15 per pound 

<Jommon window glass, 16 by 24 » »» 

Common window glass, 24 by 30 »» »» 

Common window glass, above that » " 

Freestone, granite 

Freestone, granite, hewn or dressed. 

Cotton ties 

Tin plate 

Steel ingots, etc., above 16 cents per pound 

Wire fence rods, No. 6 

Pen-knives, etc 

Table cutlery 

Sbotguns 

Mica 

Horses 

Cattle 

Hogs 

Sheep 

Eggs 

Plants, trees, etc 

Fish, fresh 

Schedule F. Tobacco 

Plushes 

Hosiery 

;Shirts and drawers 

Burlaps 

Brown and bleached linens 

It II II 

Woolens and worsted, knit goods, etc 

II II II II II 

II II II II II 

II II II II II 

II II II II II 

^Worsteds, knit goods, under 30 cents 

II 11 30 to 40 cents 

II »» 40to 60 cents 

i» »t 60 to 80 cents 

" »' above 80 cents 

W^orsted shawls 

Belts for presses (printing) 

Blankets and flannels and hats 

Women's and children's dress goods 

II II II 

II II II 

Clothing, ready made 

Cloaks, dolmans, etc 

Webbings, gorings, etc 



Present duty. 


Proposed duty. 


67.61 


73.73 


115.41 


123.10 


128.58 


135.34 


132.29 


138.04 


20.23 


40.00 


20.00 


50.00 


35.00 


115.00 


34.00 


74.00 


11.89 


45.00 


45.00 


54.00 


50.00 


75.00 


35.00 


60.00 


35.00 


60.00 


Free. 


35.00 


20.00 


70.00 


20.00 


61.94 


20.00 


45.68 


20.00 


50.00 


Free. 


32.91 


Free. 


20.00 


Free. 


52.10 


81.00 


200.00 


40.00 


100.00 


40.00 


60.00 


40.00 


65.00 


30.00 


{*) 


35.00 


.50.00 


35.00 


60.00 


69.00 


100.00 


94.59 


125.00 


88.43 


135.00 


93.81 


124.00 


68.41 


147.00 


67.60 


130.00 


73.20 


130.00 


68.41 


147.00 


67.60 


130.00 


68.98 


112.00 


71.22 


90.00 


61.82 


93.00 


53.14 


101.00 


69.70 


110.00 


68.00 


103.00 


60.00 


ndM 


85.00 


110.00 


54.00 


84.00 


60.00 


82.00 


64.00 


99.00 



*50 per cent 

Therefore there is a net increase of taxation of $5,000,000 ; or about five mil- 
lions on imports, notwithstanding the repeal of the sugar duty. 

This table relates to gloves, and shows the duties levied by the bill : 

The first two tables give the average value as stated on page 1365 of the testimony 
taken before the Ways and Means Committee : 

Men's kid gloves : Average value, $5 per dozen ; present duty, $3 50 per dozen ; Mc- 

Kinley bill, 50 per cent, ad valorem $3 50 

Extra duty because men's 1 00 

Extra if pique 50 

Extra if embroidered , .,,, 50 

Total 4 50 

Making the rate of duty 90 per cent., or almost double what the domestic maufac- 
turers asked for. 



296 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Men's lamb gloves • Average value, $4 per dozen ; present duty, $2 per dozen ; Mc- 

Kinley bill, 50 per cent, ad valorem |2 00 

Extra duty because men's 1 OO 

Extra if pique 50 

Extra if embroidered 50 

Total 4 00 

Extra if Imed 1 00 

Total 5 00 

Making the rate 100 per cent, on all ordinary gloves and 125 per cent, on all lined 
gloves, for nearly all the gloves are sewed with the pique or prick seams and are em- 
broidered. 

In the following tables the average value is taken from the Government statistics; 
which appear on page 1364 of the House testimony : 

Men's kid gloves : Average value $6 per dozen ; present duty, $3 per dozen ; as they 

will pay under McKinley bill, 50 per cent, ad valorem $3 00- 

Extra duty because men's 1 00- 

Extra if pique 50^ 

Extra if embroidered 50^ 

Total $5 00 

Extra if lined .^ 1 00 

Total $6 OO 

Making the rate 83)^ r)er cent, on all ordinary gloves and 100 per cent, on all lined 
gloves made from kid-skins. 

Men's lamb gloves : Average value, $4 70 per dozen ; present duty, $2 35 per dozen ; 

as they will pay under McKinley bill, 50 per cent, ad valorem $2 35 

Extra duty because men's 1 00 

Extra if pique — 50 

Extra if embroidered , 50 

Total 4 a5 

Extra if lined 1 00 

Total 5 35 

Making the rate 92X per cent, on all ordinary gloves and 118 4-5 per ceut. on all lined 
gloves made from lamb-skins. 

Senator McPherson said in the course of the debate : 

" Take it on cotton collars and cuffs costing 50 cents per dozen, a duty of 15 
cents and 35 per cent, is equal to 65 per cent.; costing 60 cents per dozen, a duty of 
15 cents and 35 per cent, is equai to 60 per cent.; 75 cents per dozen, a duty of 15 
cents and 35 per cent, is equal to 53.6 per cent.; on collars and cuffs costing $1 per 
dozen, a duty of 15 cents and 35 per cent, is equal to 50 per cent.; on collars and 
cuffs, part linen, at 75 per dozen, a duty of 30 cents and 35 per cent, is equal to 75 
per cent.; at $1 per dozen, a duty of 30 cents and 35 per cent, is equal to Q5 per 
cent.; at $1.25 per dozen, a duty of 30 cents and 35 per cent, is equal to 59 per cent.; 
on collars and cuffs, all linen, at $1.50 per dozen, a duty of 30 cents and 35 per cent, 
is equal to 55 per cent.; at $2 per dozen, a duty of 30 cents and 35 per cent, is equal 
to 50 per cent. 

Senator Bate said : 

" The bulletin from the Agricultural Department having shown the farmer's 
receipts for corn to be 29.1 cents, for wheat 70 6 cents, for oats 23 cents, and so on 
through a descending scale to ruin, I will now trace the increased expenditures 
which tariff legislation helps in accelerating his speed to bankruptcy. While it is 
true that no Federal tax-gatherer presents an annual bill for taxes, yet the collection 
goes on daily, hourly, on every article of clothing, on every utensil of farm or 
household ; and the same holds true with the w^age-earner — the day-laborer, the 
clerk, the mechanic, the car-driver, the coachman, the cook, the nuise,or the ne^rs- 
boy — they are contributing not only in patriotic taxes, but in hard-wrung tribute 



TARIFF TAXATION. 297 

to the extra profits of another class of their fellow-citizens. For every dollar the 
farmer or wage-earner pays to the Government $5, to go to the manufacturer as 
bounty. 

On a suit of working clothes costing $7 the bounty to the manufacturer is 
$2.27 ; on a better suit costing $20, bounty $6.48 ; overcoats costing $15, bounty 
:$4.85; two flannel shirts $1.50, bounty 64 cents; six pairs of woolen socks $2, 
bounty 86 cents ; one woolen hat $3, bounty $1.29 ; one woolen cap $1, bounty 43 
cents ; one pair of suspenders 50 cents, bounty 14 cents ; one pair of shoes $3.50, 
bounty 70 cents ; one pair of woolen gloves 50 cents, bounty 21 cents : rubber coat 
$3.50, bounty 80 cents ; umbrella $1, bounty 34 cents; three linen handkerchiefs 
$1, bounty 26 cents; one silk tie 50 cents, bounty 17 cents; one pocket-knife $1.25, 
bounty 42 cents ; one shaving brush 35 cents, bounty 9 cents ; four cotton shirts 
$3, bounty 75 cents ; two pair of cotton drawers $1, bounty 31 cents ; one woven 
scarf 50 cents, bounty 21 cents : three calico dresses for wife, cost $2.25, bounty 50 
cents ; three aprons 50 cents, bounty 10 cents ; two woolen dresses $16, bounty 
$6.60; two balmoral skirts $3, bounty $1.10; two cotton skirts $1.50, bounty 25 
cents; two flannel suits $3, bounty $1.29 ; woolen cloak $12, bounty $2.89; shawl 
$6, bounty $2.79 ; hood $1.25, bounty 54 cents ; straw bonnet $1, bounty 23 cents ; 
two pair of shoes $4, bounty 80 cents ; rubbers 50 cents, bounty 10 cents ; parasol 
$2, bounty 40 cents ; veil 70 cents, bounty 24 cents ; 5 yards of ribbon 50 cents, 
bounty 17 cents ; three linen collars 50 cents, bounty 12 cents ; three pairs of linen 
cuffs 60 cents, bounty 14 cents; three handkerchiefs 75 cents, bounty 20 cents; 
tuck-comb 20 cents, bounty 7 cents ; tooth-brush 35 cents, bounty 8 cents ; pair of 
woolen mits 50 cents, bounty 21 cents; pair of gloves $1.25, bounty 47 cents; two 
pairs of flannel drawers $1.50, bounty 64 cents. 

These are the tributes paid under the existing tariff ; so that at present, on an 
expenditure of $61.90 for a wife's store bill, the farmer or wage-earner has to pay 
$20.76 in tariff taxes, about one-fifth of which goes to swell the surplus when it is 
not needed and four-fifths to pamper the luxurious-living capitalists. 

The Mills bill would have relieved from part of this tax, but the McKinley 
bill adds to all these bounties by increasing the duties." 

Senator Vest said : 

" Now, Mr. President, a few words in regard to the bill pending before the 
Senate, as to its provisions. I happened the other day to find in a newspaper the 
following very apposite letter. It is in the Northampton (Pa.) Democrat: 

Near Topeka, Kans., January 24, 1890. 
Mr, Editor : I often wonder how your Northampton farmer get on on our high old pro- 
te ctlon laws. Out here we suffer pretty badly. Let me give you something from my oasti 

©XP©rl6IlCG. 

Just before Christmas I drove into Topeka to get some clothes for myself and a dress 
lor my wife. I bought an entire ready-made suit for myself for $20 ; an overcoat for $10 ; 
derby hat, $2 ; worsted shirts and cotton stockings, $2 ; cotton shirt and cravat, $1.50 ; 
total, $35.50; woolen dress for my wife, $10; total, $45.50. 

I made a bargain with the merchant to take his pay in corn at its market price on 
January 2, delivered to him in Topeka, I living 4 miles out of town. 

Well, yesterday being the day fixed, I went in town to see how much corn I must 
deliver for my clothing bill of $45.50. I was told that the price was 15 cents per bushel, 
and that I must bring him 303 )i bushels of merchantable com. I was somewhat surprised, 
but as my neighbors, who had not indulged in any new clothes, were burning their com 
for fuel, I bore the news cheerfully, and went home to arrange about getting the com 
delivered. 

It struck me after reading this letter, which manifestly came from a farmer, 
that I would take the existing tariff and measure the tariff tax to be paid upon 
this bill of goods for himself and wife." 



298 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The Senator then added a pair of blankets and a pocket-knife to the list and 
said : 

" Under the present law the whole bill would cost him $50.57, the tariff duty 
being $19.06 ; and the cost would be without the tariff $31.51 instead of $50.57. 
under the existing law. 

" Now, to carry out this matter, I took the pending bill and these same articles- 
and calculated the cost under its provisions, for that is the best illustration in the 
world of how this tariff will operate upon the people. His ready-made suit, under 
the pending bill, instead of paying 55 per cent, duty, pays 85 per cent., and instead 
of a tariff tax upon his suit of $7, it is, under this proposed law which we are about, 
to enact, $11.05. The overcoat, instead of being taxed 55 per cent., as it is now, will 
be taxed under this bill 85 per cent., or $5.52, instead of $3.50. The hat is taxed, 
under the pending bill, instead of 71 per cent., 100 per cent., making a tariff tax of 
$1.17. The worsted shirt 85 per cent., instead of 55 per cent., making $1.10. On 
the cotton shirt and cravat the duty is 50 per cent, instead of 35 as now, making 
a tariff tax of 55 cents. The woolen dress is taxed 110 per cent, under the pending 
bill, which would make the tax $5.94. On one pair of blankets, 5 pounds, the duty 
under the proposed law is 105 per cent., which makes the tariff tax $2.66. The 
knife has a tax upon it of 100 per cent., under the pending bill, which makes the 
tariff duty 50 cents. So the bill of goods which under the existing law would have 
cost this farmer $50.57, costs him under this bill about to be enacted $60, the tariff 
tax being $28.49, whereas he would have got the same goods without the duty for 
$81.50. 

" There is the whole of the tariff. This is the operation of the woolen schedule^ 
and it is worth all the theories, all the vituperative eloquence, all the appeals to 
" the old flag and an appropriation," which the Republican party can make in the 
next year." 

The following are from the speech of Hon. T. C. McRae : 

" Mr. speaker, I have here an account of an industrious, well-posted farmer 
acquaintance and constituent of mine, at whose request I have caused the tax paid 
by him to be estimated by an expert. The account represents actual transactions 
for last year and amounts to $91.89, and the tax included in it is estimated to be 
$28,74. 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



299 



Store Account for 1889. 
J. W. Neill to Shackelford & Bell, Okalona, Ark., Dr. 



Articles. 



4 pairs shoes 

11 pounds shot 

2 pounds powder (10 cents per pound) 

553^ pounds coffee 

27 pounds salt 

5 gallons coal oil 

11 spools cotton thread, 200 yards 

1 yard ribbon 

3 bunches cotton thread 

1 package needles 

1 pound yarn thread 

1 6-inch me, 10 cents ; 2 8-inch, 30 cents 

X pound pepper 

}i pound spice 

1 box blacking 

1 quu-e paper 

68 yards cotton, domestic 

18 yards cotton, bed-ticking 

20 pounds sugar 

10 yards cotton flannel 

25 yards wool flannel 

10 yards Jeans (wool and cotton) 

25 yards cotton checks 

13 yards cottonades 

28 yards prints 

10 yards cotton shirting 

10 yards cotton shirting, hickory 

1}^ yards cotton jackonet 

1 lady's corset • . . 

4 pounds soda (1>^ cents) 

9^ gallons molasses (8 cents) 

5 pounds nails (IM cents) 

2 boxes felt gun wads 

1 pocket knife 

1 comb 

1 package pins 

1 box horn buttons 

1 pair lady's lisle thread gloves 

6 pounds soap 

1 pound starch 

1 pair suspenders 

1 pair lady's cotton hose 

6 yards jute bagging 

9 pounds ties 

1 3-gallon earthen jar 

1 boy's wool hat 

1 lady's straw hat 

14 yards cotton lawn 

2 pair cotton overalls 

1 seei-sucker coat and vest (cotton) 

1 pair pants (part wool) 

1 woolen shawl 

1 hand-saw, $1.75 (40 per cent.) ; 1 draw knife, $1.25 (35 per 

cent) 

1 brace and bit with }i dozen bits 

1 hammer, 40 cents 2X cents (15 per cent.), 1 monkey 

wrench, 80 cents (45 per cent) 

}i dozen chisels 

4 steel shovel plows 

4 hoes. $2.75 (45 per cent.) ; 6 packages tacks, 50 cents (25 

percent) 

K dozen sets door hinges 

4 pairs trace chains (1^ cents) 

14-pound ax 

1 bottle castor oil 

1 box blue mass 

1 ounce quinine, free 

1 bottle paregoric 

1 bottle laudanum 

1 bottle Dover's powders ,,..,,.,... 

Total 



Cost of 
goods. 



$8 00 

95 

70 

50 

49 

1 50 

57 

07 

10 

10 

50 

40 

15 

15 

10 

15 

4 73 

360 

200 

1 00 

6 25 

300 

200 



1 00 



25 



10 
10 
10 
30 
50 
10 
15 
20 
80 
45 
30 
75 
75 

1 86 

2 10 

1 50 

2 25 

3 00 

300 
420 

120 
1 80 
1 60 

325 

1 80 

300 

1 00 

25 

40 

75 



91 89 



Per cent, 
of duty. 



45 



50 



200 
25 



Amount 
of tariff. 



$ia5 

40 
16 



193 
128 

100 

36 

265 

123 

72 



05 
04 

or 

38 
13 
06 
31 
18 
66 
55 
39 
79 
140 



44 
100 



16 



28 74 



300 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



PRESCOTT a^Il£^ JuTlC 10 1890 
DEAR SIR : I have been trying for some time to inform myself 'in regard to the tariff 
^awg to ascertain just how and to What extent they impose unnecessary, and therefore 
unjust, burdens upon the people. I am, as you know, a farmer. I have for a long time 
been desirous of knowing just what the support of the Government and the protection 
to the manufacturers of the country cost me annually. It is difficult for me to arrive at 
this to my entii-e satisfaction from reading the tariff schedules, or from the discussions of 
tho question in Congress or by the newspapers and public speakers of the coimtry. 

I have concluded to send you the itemized account of my purchases with one of my 
merchants last year, and ask you to get an expert, if you can, to estimate or extend the 
tariff duty on each article separately, and also upon the whole bill. I bought hardware, 
agricultural implements and other goods from other merchants, but I suppose I will be 
able to estimate the duty on them myself when I get it figured out upon this bill. 

I do not complain, and shall never complain at having to bear my proportion 
of the burden of supporting the Government, honestly and economically administered. 
That I of course recognize to be my duty, and I perform it cheerfully. But I am not 
aware that the manufacturer contributes anything to "" protect " me, a consumer, and as 
I and my class appear to be growing poorer all the time, comparatively speaking, while 
he is growing richer, the burdens which the tariff laws imposes upon me tor his protection 
above the actual needs of the Government are becoming very irksome to me. 
With great respectt I am, sir, very tnily yours, 

Hon. Thomas C. McRae, "Washington, D. C. 

PRESCOTT, Ark., December 23, 1889, 
Mr. B. F. Steele bought of W. B. Waller, dealer in groceries and general merchandise. 



Tariff 


Cost Of 


Amount 


rate. 


goods. 


of tariff. 


er cent. 






30 


$100 


$0 23 


69 


40 


15 


40 


10 


03 


55 


1 60 


57 


55 


20 


07 


55 


30 
2 00 


10 


108 


5 00 


260. 


43 


45 


14 


30 


10 


03 


35 


45 


12 


30 


125 


29 


30 


1 75 


40 


a5 


2 50 


67 


35 


1 50 


39 


51 


255 


86 


51 


85 


29 


30 


125 


29 


30 


525 


121 


60 


10 


04 


68 


125 


51 


30 


2 00 


46 


35 


2 25 


59 


30 


600 


1 39 


35 


45 


12 


55 


2 00 


71 


35 


85 


22 


55 


21 


08 


69 


56 


23 


25 


15 


03 


60 


30 


12 


55 


63 


23 


108 


623 


323 


50 


30 


20 


30 


1 25 


29 


39 


5 50 


1 55 


25 


30 


06- 


55 


60 


22 


60 


60 


23 


40 


30 


09 


91 


45 


22 


35 


V5 


20 


94 


25 


12 


55 


85 


18 


30 


200 


46 


55 


1 20 


43- 


25 


10 


02 


60 


a5 


02 


54 


3 85 


ia5 


a5 


1 50 


39 


44 


1 65 


52^ 



Feb. 9. 
Feb. 9. 
Feb. 9. 
Feb. 15. 
Feb. 15. 
Feb. 15. 
Feb. 23. 
Feb. 23. 
Mar. 2. 
Mar. 2. 
Mar. 2. 
Mar. 9. 
Mar. 9. 
Mar. 16. 
Mar. 16. 
Mar. 16. 
Mar. 16. 
Mar. 16. 
Mar. 16. 
Mar. 18. 
Apr. 1. 
Apr. 1. 
Apr. 13. 
Apr. 13. 
Apr. 13. 
Apr. 13. 
Apr. 13. 
Apr. 17. 
Apr. 17. 
Apr. 17. 
Apr. 17. 
Apr. 17. 
Apr. 17. 
Apr. 27. 
May 4. 
May 7. 
May 11. 
May 11. 
May 25. 
Jnne 4. 
June 26. 
June 29. 
July 20. 



Aug 
Aug .. 
Aug. 3. 
Aug. 3. 
Auk- 3. 
Sept. 21 
Sept. 21 
Sept. 21 



Ipair child's shoes ...m 

4 yards muslin, 10 cents 

IX yards trimming, 8 cents 

20 yards indigo prints, 8 cents 

4 yards indigo prints, 5 cents 

3 yards ginghams, 10 cents 

9 pounds coffee 22^ cents 

60 pounds sugar (granulated), 8)^ cents — 

1 pair iron trace chains 

1 leather hame-string 

1 duck horse-color 

Ipairbrogan shoes 

1 pair women's oil-grain shoes 

3 pairs jean pants, $1.25 

3 jean vests, 75 cents 

34 yards cotton, 7/^ cents 

10 yards cotton drill, 8>^ cents 

1 pair man's brogan shoes 

3 pairs women's oil-grain shoes, $1.75 

3 spools cotton. 5 cents 

1 man's wool hat 

1 pair calf shoes 

3 pairs duck overalls, 75 cents 

3 pairs women's dongola button shoes, .f2. 

3 pairs cotton hose, 15 cents 

1 pair woolen pants 

1 white, linen bosom, cotton shirt 

3 yards cotton plaids, 7 cents ^ 

7 yards cotton bleached domestic, 8 cents. 

1 card dress buttons 

6 spools cotton, 5 cents 

9 yards prints, 7 cents 

73 3i pounds granulated sugar, 8>^ cents... 

3 yards ribbon 

1 pair brogan shoes 

10 gallons molasses, 55 cents 

1 3-gallon stone jar 

3 yards cottonade, 20 cents 

13 spools cotton, 6 cents 

6 boxes gun caps, 5 cents 

6 pounds corn starch, 1)6 cents 

1 cotton shirt 

3 pounds soda, 8J4 cents 

5 yards cotton ])lalds, 7 cents 

1 i>air woman's dongola shoes. 

13 yards dress ginghams, 10 cents 

1 dozen dress l)uttons 

1 sjjool cotton 

.35 yards Jute bagging, 11 cents 

1 bale iron cotton -ties 

1 barrel salt .-• 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



301 



Sept. 21. 
Sept. 21. 
Sept. 21. 
Sept. 30. 
Sept. 30. 
Sept. 30. 
Sept. 30. 
Oct. 10. 
Oct. 10. 
Oct. 10. 
Oct. 10. 
Nov. 20. 
Nov. 20. 
Dec. 23. 



3 pounds soda, 8K cents 

3 pounds corn starch, 8K cents . 
1 pair woman's oil-grain shoes. 

18 yards linsey, 15 cents 

6 yards linsey, 20 cents 

15 yards flannel, 30 cents 

1 overcoat 

1 set knives and forks 

1 set plates 

1 set cups and saucers 

1 tin wash-basin 

2 pairs woolen blankets, $3 

2 pairs woolen blankets, $4.50. . . 
1 suit boy's clothes, cassimere. . 



CREDIT. 

Feb. 1. By cash deposited $100 00 

Dec. 23. By cash deposited 17 G3 



$117 63 



Tariff 
rate. 



Per 



cent. 
94 
91 
30 

58 
68 
82 
54 
35 
55 
55 
45 
71 
71 
54 



Cost of 
goods. 



25 
25 

1 75 

2 70 
120 
4 50 

10 00 

1 25 

65 

50 

10 

6 00 
900 

7 00 



$117 63 



Amount 
of tariff. 



12 
12 
41 

1 10 
49 

2 03 

3 51 
33 
23 
18 
03 

2.50 
3 74 
2 46 



$40 15 



Total cost $117 63 

Total tariff 40 15 



Cost without tariff $ 77 48 

Average rate per cent, of tariff, 51 per cent. 



Compare the following table showing how our farmers would have been bene- 
fited by the Mills bill if it had become a law : 



Value. 



Duty. 



Net 
saving. 



One cook stove... 
By Mills bill. 

One set crockeiT- 
By Mills biU. 



One set cheap glass-ware. 
By Mills bill 



One set cheap cutlery. 
By Mills biU 



Two carpets, $12 and $15. 
By Mills bill 



Sugar 

ByMiUsbill. 



Molasses 

By Mills biU. 



Salt. 



By Mills bill. 



Two suits each for father and two sons, six suits, $14. 
By MiUs bill 



Two suits each for mother and two daughters, 6 suits, $14. 
By Mills bill 



Twelve pairs shoes, $2.50 each. 
By Mills bill 



Six wool hats, $1 each. 
By Mills bUl 



Six fur hats, $2.50 each. 
By Mills bill 



Six ladies' hats, $3 each. 
By Mills bill 



$35 00 



Per cent. 



12 00 
4 00 



200 
27 00 



20 00 
10 00 



3 00 
84 00 



84 00 
30 00 



6 00 
15 00 
18 00 



47= 
31= 


116 45 
10 85 


55= 
35= 


6 60 
4 20 


56= 
41= 


2 24 
164 


50= 
35= 


100 
70 


47= 
30= 


12 00 
800 


60= 
50= 


12 00 
10 00 


47= 
35= 


4 -70 
350 


40= 1 20 
Free list. 


54= 

45= 


45 36 
37 80 


82= 
40= 


68 88 
33 60 


30= 
15= 


900 
450 


73= 
40= 


438 
240 


52= 

40= 


7 80 
6 20 


70= 
40= 


12 60 
7 20 



2 46 
60 
30 

4 00 
200 
1 20 
120 
7 56 

35 28 
450 
198 
1 60 

5 40 



302 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Value. 



Duty. 



Net 
saving. 



Six bonnets for ladies, $3 each. 
ByMUls bill 



Farming tools, including plow, gear, hand-saw, ax, draw- 
knife, chains, etc 

By Mills biU 

Medicines 

By Mills bill 



Thread, needles, thimbles, scissors, etc. 
ByMiUs bill 



Four pairs blankets, $3 each. 
ByMiUs bill 



Two umbrellas, $3.50 each. 
By Mills bill 



Cotton hosiery, undershirts, etc. 
By Mills bill 



Window-glass 

ByMiUs biU. 

Starch. 



ByMiUs biU. 



Rice. 



By MlUs biU. 



Total cost under present tariff. 
Under MiUs biU 



18 00 



60 00 



20 00 
12 00 



12 00 
5 00 



800 
2 00 



400 
10 00 



50100 



Per cent. 
70= 12 60 

40= 7 20 



47= 28 20 
34= 13 60 



*48= 9 80 
30= 6 00 



35= 4 20 
20= 2 40 



70= 8 40 
40= 4 80 



40= 2 00 
30= 150 



45= 3 60 
30= 2 40 



43= 



120 



94= 3 70 

47= 1 88 



113= 11 30 
100= 10 00 



189 27 
104 98 



5 40 

14 60 
3 80 
1 80 
360 

50 
120 

34 
182 
130 



84 29 



The foregoing is an estimate of necessary articles which a family in moderate 
circumstances would likely purchase in one year, from which it will appear that 
about $84 would be contributed as tariff taxes. 

The farmer can take his mortgage in one hand, the foregoing tables in the 
other, sit down in the light of his corn fire, and work out how he is protected by 
tha Republican tariff. 



The rates of duty established by the new law went into effect October 6, 1890, 
except a few rates as to which the law fixes other dates. 

The TARIFF HAS THUS BEEST "REVISED BY ITS FRIENDS;" IT MUST SOON BE 
" REVISED BY ITS VICTIMS." 



TARIFF TAXATION. ^03 

III. 

WHAT THE MILLS BILL WAS. 



A Complete Showing by Schedule of the Reduction Proposed 
in the Burdens of Taxation— The Free I^ist Enlarged for 
the Benefit of Everybody. 

The Mills bill was not a general revision of tariff duties. It related to only the 
articles enumerated in the table that follows. 

The free list of the present tariff includes 335 paragraphs of the law of 1883. 
In the Mills Bill 139 additional paragraphs are devoted to the free list, including 
only a very few more than this number of articles. The carrying, therefore, of 
these articles to the free list was simply an enlargement of the same, and not a 
making of it anew. 

It has been the policy of the country in constructing tariff laws, even those 
carrying the highest rate of duty, to include in the free list a^large number of 
articles, the importation of which is small, and the necessaries of life produced in 
other countries and not in this. This same principle was carried into^the Mills 
bill, with the addition that certain raw materials of industry were added to the 
free list. The section given below represents all the additions made under the 
Mills bill : 

The following tables show in the first column the amount of tariff tax paid on each 
$100 worth of imported goods in 1887. The second colmnn shows the amount that would 
have been paid under the Mills bill. Where no rate is given there were no importations 
in 1887 on which to calculate. 

Tariff-tax 

per Mills bill. 
ARTICLES. $10(fwortli 

in 1887. 
Wood and manufacturers of : 
Timber- 
Used for spars and in buDding wharves $ 20 00 Free. 

Hewn and sawed 20 00 n 

Square and sided, not specially enumerated or provided for 10 26 *j 

Wood, unmanufactured 20 00 » 

Lumber- 
Boards, planks, deals, and other sawed timber, of hemlock, white- 
wood, sycamore and basswood— 

Not planed or finished 11 73 <» 

All other articles of sawed lumber, not elsewhere specified— 

Not planed or finished $ 16 18 Free. 

Hubs for wheels ; posts ; last, wagon, oar, gim and heading-blocks, 

and all like blocks or sticks, rough hewn or sawed only 20 00 » 

Stavss of all kinds 10 00 » 

Pickets and palings 20 00 »» 

Laths 11 87 »• 

Shingles 16 89 •• 

Clapboards- 
Pine 7 98 » 

Spruce 10 98 tt 

Salt In bags, etc 39 30 «• 

Saltin bulk 79 68 » 

Flax straw , 10 73 »» 

Flax, not hackled 9 05 t» 

Flax tow 5 21 ti 

Hemp tow 6 37 « 

Hemp 16 59 «• 

Manilla and substitutes 21 06 •» 

Jute butts 19 13 It 

Jute 20 00 It 

Sunn 15 45 it 

Sisal grass 14 80 " 



301 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Tariff tax 
per 
AKTICLES. . fioaworth Mills bill. 

in 1887. 

Othei" vegetable substances , $13 66 

Burlaps, not exceeding 60 inches 30 00 

Jute machinery, not enumerated in present tariff 45 00 

Tin plates, terne plates and taggers tin, of iron or steel 33 80 

Beeswax 20 00 

Glycerine, crude, brown or yellow -.-,-■: 24 78 

Phosphorus 19 53 

Crysilic wash or Sheep-dip 20 00 

Soap, hard and soft 20 00 

Hemlock, extract, tanning, etc 20 00 

Indigo, extract 10 00 

Indigo, carmine 10 00 

Oil, croton 62 50 

Hemp-seed and rape-seed oil 27 07 

Petroleum (included in oils) 10 00 

Alamina, alum, etc '. 40 96 

Mineral waters, imitation 30 00 

Baryta, etc., manufactured 10 00 

Borax, crude 26 05 

Borax, refined 42 49 

Boracic acid, commercial 80 51 

Boracic acid, pm-e 59 48 

Copper, sulphate of, blue vitriol 77 11 

Iron, sulphate of, copperas 56 67 

Potash- 
Crude , 20 00 

Carbonate of, or fused 20 00 

Caustic 20 00 

Chlorate 24 93 

Nitrate (crude) 35 30 

Sulphate 20 00 

Soda- 
Sulphate, salt or nitre cake 20 00 

Sulphate, Glauber's salts. 20 00 

Nitrite of, not enumerated - 

Sulphur, refined, in rolls, ^ 35 06 

Wood-tar 10 00 

Coal-tar- 
Crude, 10 00 

Products, benzine, etc 20 00 

Not colors or dyes 20 00 

Pitch of 20 00 

Logwood and other dye-woods, extracts and decoctions of 10 00 

Alizarine, natural or artificial— now free 

Turpentine, spirits of 11 77 

Earths— 

Ocher, etc., dry 50 11 

Umber, etc., dry 63 20 

Sienna, dry 23 05 

Oils- 
Olive oil 25 00 

Cotton seed oil 62 50 

Salad 25 00 

Neats-foot oil 25 00 

Seal oil 25 00 

Whale oils 25 00 

Barks, beans, etc 10 00 

Crude minerals, etc 10 00 

Clays or earth, unwrought 18 09 

Opium, crude 43 76 

Cotton ties or hoops for bailing or other purposes, etc a5 00 

Needles, sewing, darning, knitting, etc. 25 00 

Ores, copper 49 63 

Ores, copper, regulus 70 57 

Copper, old 51 .57 

Antimony as regulus, etc 10 00 

Quicksilver 10 00 

Chromate of iron 15 00 

Metals, unwrought 20 00 

Mineral substances, crude 20 00 

Brick, other than fire-brick 20 00 

German looking-glass plates of blown glass. 

Vegetables, fresh or brine 10 00 

Chickory • 65 17 

Acorns and other substitutes for coffee XJ 57 

Cocoa, manufactured 7 13 

Currants, Zante or other 27 48 

Dates , 26 84 

Figs 35 83 

Meats, game and iioultry 10 00 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



305 



Tariff-tax 
per 
ARTICLES. f 100 worth 

in 1887. 

Milk, fresh $10 00 

Egg yelks 20 00 

Beans and pease 10 00 

Split pease 20 00 

Bibles and books and pamphlets, not English, not enumerated 25 00 

Bristles 15 08 

Bulbs and roots, not otherwise provided for: 20 00 

Feathers, crude, ostrich 25 00 

All other 25 00 

Finishing powder 20 00 

Grease, not elsewhere specified 10 00 

Grindstones U 73 

Curled hair 25 00 

Human hair, raw 20 00 

Hempseed 15 OT 

Rape and other oil seeds 7 50 

Garden seeds 20 00 

Osier, or willow for baskets 25 00 

Broom-corn, not enumerated 10 00 

Brush wood 10 00 

Rags 10 00 

Rattans a.nd reeds 10 00 

Stones, free, granite, etc., rough 21 22 

Gut strings, except musical 25 00 

Tallow 26 29 

Waste, not otherwise provided for 10 00 

"Wools, hair of the alpaca, goat and other like animals, and manu- 
factures of : 
Unmanufactured- 
Class 1, clothing wools : That is to say, merino, mestiza, metz or 
metis wools, other wools of merino blood, immediate or remote, 
Down clothing wools, and wools of like character with any of the 
preceding, including such as have been heretofore usually im- 
ported into the United States from Buenos Ayres, New Zealand, 
Australia, Cape of Good Hope, Russia, Great Britain, Canada, and 
elsewhere, and also including all wools not hereinafter described 
or designated in classes 2 and 3— 

Value 30 cents or less per pound 54 78 Free. 

Value over 30 cents per pound 35 92 a 

Washed wool- 
Value (before washing) 30 cents or less per pound 58 51 n 

Value (before washing) over 30 cents per pound 69 71 » 

Scoured wool- 
Value (before scouring) 30 cents or less per pound 74 11 » 

A^alue (before scouring) over 30 cents per pound 60 93 ti 

Class 2, combing wools : That is to say, Leicester, Coltswold, Lin- 
colnshire, Down combing wools, Canada long wools, or other like 
combing wools of English blood, and usually known by the terms 
herein used, and also hair of the alpaca goat and other like ani- 
mals- 
Value 30 cents or less per pound 43 23 

Value ovei230 cents per poimd 28 78 

Scoured wool- 
Value (before scouring) 30 cents or less per pound 66 18 

Class 3, carpet wools, and other similar wools: Such as Dohskoi, 
native South American, Cordova, Valparaiso, native Smyrna, and 
Including all such wools of like character as have been heretofore 
usually imported Into the United States from Turkey, Greece, 
Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere — 

Value 12 cents or less per pound 24 98 

Value over 12 cents per pound 27 69 

Scoured wool- 
Value (before scouring) 12 cents or less per pound 41 77 »» 

Value (before scouring) over 12 cents per pound 22 79 »» 

AVools on the skin, not enumerated 

Rags, shoddy, mungo, waste 26 41 » 

Total wools, etc., $ 36 08 u 

DUTIABLE LIST. SCHEDULE A.— CHEMICALS. 

Glycerine, refined $ 47 is $ 28 30 

Acid, acetic, acetous, or pyrollgneous acid, exceeding 1.047 sp. gr 88 46 44 23 

Castor beans or seeds 55 70 27 85 

Castor oil..... I94 77 9733 

Flaxseed or linseed oil 54 79 33 00 

Licorice, paste or rolls 56 18 37 00 

Licorice Juice, not enumerated 35 00 

Barytes, manufactured 50 I7 35 09 

39 



Free. 



Free. 



306 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



ARTICLES. 



Tariff-tax 

per 

$100 worth 

in 1887. 

j- $ 43 95 -j 
131 11 



Chromate of potashi ••• !••>.. 

Bichromate of potash 

Acetate of lead, white '. 

White lead, when dry } 

White lead, mixed in oil f 40 19, 

Orange, mineral , 70 OO 

' lead 



Red 

Litharge 

Nitrate of lead 

Magnesia, medicinal carbonate. 

Magnesia, calcined . , 

Magnesia, sulphate of 

Prussiate of potash, red 

Prussiate of potash, yellow 

Nitrate of potash, refined 

Sal soda 



Bicarbonate of saleratus, pearl ash 

Hydrate or caustic soda 

Soda, silicate 

Sulphur, sublimed 

Ultramarine 

Paris green— not enumerated 

All other colors and paints 

Smalts or f rostings 

Prussian blue 

Spanish, Indian red 

Venetian red 

Vandyke, cassel brown 

Vermillion 

Water colors, in cakes 

Satin, white, blanc fixe 

Oils and colors, in tubes 

Lampblack 

Zinc, oxide of, dry 

Zinc, oxide of, ground in oil 

Cerates, etc 

Kaolin, crude 

Kaolin, manufactured 

All ground spices 

Proprietary preparations 

Perfumery, cosmetics and toilet preparations . 

Morphia or morphine 

Acid, tannin or tannic 



76 96 
83 54 
63 34 
57 93 
40 36 
39 74 
35 26 

a5 a5 

33 70 
39 01 
61 16 
52 13 
39 57 
55 82 
51 76 
25 00 



Mills Mil, 



$35 80 
65 05 
26 80 

35 00 

38 48 

41 77 

42 23 
34 75 
28 25 

19 87 
24 68: 
24 75. 
22 47' 

20 00' 

30 58 
26 00-^ 
19 79= 
33 56 

31 19 
12 50* 



1- 25 00 



SCHEDULE B.— EARTHENWARE AND GLASSWARE, 



China, etc., ornamented 

China, etc., plain 

Brown earthenware, etc 

All other earthenware 

Encaustic tiles , 

Glazed tiles, ornamented, not enumerated (dutiable as earthenware). 

Slates, etc 

Cylinder and crown, polished, above 24 by 30 to 24 by 60 

All &,bove that, none imported 

Cylinder and crown, unpolished, 10 by 15 

Cylinder and crown, 10 by 15 to 16 by 24 

Cylinder and crown, 16 by 24 to 24 by 30 

Cylinder and crown, above 24 by 30 

Cast, polished, silvered plate- 
Above 24 by 30, not above 24 by 60 

All above that 

Porcelain, Bohemian, chemical glassware, etc 

All other manufactures 



20 oa- 



32 37 


5 90 


35 34 


30 29 


25 00 


20 00 


45 00 


15 00 


45 00 


30 00 


50 12 


30 00 


50 00 


30 00 




30 00 


58 .52 


29 41 


196 97 


98 00 


$60 00 


$ 50 00 


,55 00 


40 00 


25 00 


30 00 


55 00 


a5 00 


a5 00 


30 00 


55 90 


45 00 


30 00 


30 00 


61 59 


6159 


60 71 


'eo'Ti 


93 11 


93 11 


106 21 


90 OO 


108 50 


96 00 


78 40 


56 07 


54 70 


41 35 


45 90 


40 00 


45 00 


40 00 



Total earthenware and glassware $ 59 55 $ 52 17 



SCHEDULE C— METALS. 

Iron, in pigs and kentledge- 
All others (except splegeleisen) $5660 $5050 

Bars or rails for railways- 
Other railway bars, weighing more than 25 pounds to the yard- 
Iron 93 00 65 26 

Steel, or m part of steel 84 33 54 57 

Bar iron- 
Bars, blooms, billets, or sizes or shapes of any kind, In the manufac- 
ture of which charcoal is used as fuel 51 06 46 42 



Mills bill. 


$51 a5 


62 10 


48 61 


51 T3 



TARIFF TAXATION. 307 

TarllT-tax 
per 
ARTICLES. flOO worth 

in 1887. 
Bar iron— 

Koll or hammered, comprising— 

Flats not less than 1 inch wide nor less than % of 1 inch thick $58 34 

Flats less than 1 inch wide or less than % of 1 inch thick ; round 
iron less than % of 1 inch or not less 7-16 of 1 inch in diameter ; 

and square iron less than M of 1 inch square 69 86 

Bars or rails for railways- 
Flat rails, punched— 

Iron 58 01 

Tee->'ails, weighing not over 25 pounds to the yard- 
Steel 74 48 

Bars or shapes of rolled iron, not specially enumerated or pro- 
vided for, and round iron in coils or rods, less than 7-16 of 1 inch 

in diameter 55 36 45 00 

Sheets, plates and taggers' iron— 
Sheet-iron, common or black- 
Thinner than 1^ inch and not thinner than No. 20, wire gauge. . . . 46 38 

Thinner than No. 20 and not thinner than No. 25, wire gauge 36 40 

Thinner than No. 25 and not thinner than No, 29, wire gauge 43 15 

Sheets and plates, pickled or cleaned by acid, or by any other material 
or process, and cold-rolled— 
Sheets- 
Thinner than 1>^ inch and not thinner than No. 20. wire gauge .... 36 58 

Thinner than No. 20 and not thinner than No. 25, wire gauge ' 

Thinner than No. 25 and not thinner than No. 29, wire gauge 78 55 

Sheets or plates of iron or steel (except what are commercially known 
as tin-plates, terne-plates and taggers' tin), galvanized or coated with 
zinc or spelter, or other metals, or any alloy of these metals- 
Thinner then 1>^ inch and not thinner than No. 20 wire gauge 82 39 

Thinner than No. 20 and not thinner than No. 25 wire gauge 64 09 

Thinner than No. 25 and not thinner than No. 29 wire gauge 10 78 

Sheets of iron or steel, cold-rolled, cold-hammered, or polished in any 
way. In addition to the ordinary process of hot rolling or hammering- 
Sheet iron, common or black- 
Thinner than 1>^ inch and not thinner than No. 20 wire gauge 

Thinner than No. 20 and not thinner than No. 25 wire gauge 

Thinner than No. 25 and not thinner than No. 39 wire gauge 19 43 

Hoop, band, scroll, or other iron, 8 inches or less in width— 

Not thinner than No. 10 wire gauge 39 00 

Thinner than No. 30 and not thinner than No. 35 wire gauge 47 21 

Thinner than No. 20 wire gauge 

Cast-iron pipe of every description 28 88 

Nails, spikes, tacks, brads, or sprigs- 
Cut nails and spikes of iron or steel 43 07 

Cut tacks, brads, or sprigs— 

Not exceeding 16 ounces to the thousand 

Exceeding 16 ounces to the thousand 80 31 

Railway-flsh plates or splice-bars of iron or steel 93 75 

Nuts and washers of iron or steel 38 40 

Horse, mule, or ox shoes , 54 95 

Spikes of wrought-irou or steel 53 55 

Anvils 33 91 

Anchors, and parts thereof, etc 68 26 

Rivets, bolts, with or without threads or nuts, or bolt-blanks, and finish- 
ed hinges or hinge-blanks, of u'on or steel 59 78 

Blacksmiths' hammers, sledges, etc 15 81 

Axles, parts thereof, axle-bars, axle-blanks, or forglngsfor axles without 
reference to the stage or state of manufacture, of iron or steel, and 
forgings of iron and steel, or forged iron of whatever shape, or in 
what stage of manufacture, not specially enumerated or provided 

for 62 29 

Horseshoe nails, hob nails, wire nails, etc 76 26 

Tubes or flues, or stays, of wrought-iron or steel — 

Boiler-tubes, or flues, or stays 70 97 

Other tubes 20 12 

Chai 1 or chains of all kinds, made of Iron or steel- 
Not less than M of 1 inch in diameter 47 15 

Less than % of 1 inch and not less than % of 1 inch in diameter 47 33 

Less than % of 1 inch in diameter 44 37 

Saws, hand, back, etc 40 oO 

Files, nie-blanks, rasps, and floats of ail cuts and kinds— 

4 inches in length and under • 51 85 

Over -i inches in length and under 9 inches 64 97 

9 inches in length and under 14 inches 53 30 

14 in -hes in length and over 63 39 

Beams, girders, Joists, angles, channels, ?ar-truck ^tjannels, TT columns 
and posts, or part or sections of columns and post, deck cind bulb 
beams, and building forms, together vith all structural shapes of 
Ii on or steel 103 75 49 32 



42 17 

33 37 
35 IS 


33 85 


67 33 


55 67 

53 61 

9 57 


'i6*67 


39 00 
43 49 


1733 


34 46 


'ss'oo 

59 35 
2130 
41 31 

40 16 
33 69 
51 30 


35 88 
9 49 


37 38 
47 67 


35 48 
13 40 


34 00 

35 43 
35 50 
30 00 


35 00 
35 00 
35 00 
35 00 



308 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

TarifF-tax 

• per 
AETICLES. |;100 worth Mills bill. 

in 1887. 

Wheels of steel, and steel-tired wheels for railway purposes, whether 

wholly or partly finished, and iron or steel locomotive, car and other ^ 

railway tires, or part thereof, wholly or partly manufactured $ 78 36 $63 61 

Bars, billets, blooms, blanks, ingots, etc., of steel, ingots, clogged ingots, 
blooms, or blanks, for railway wheels and tires, without regard to 

the degree of manufacture 101 22 75 93 

Wire of iron, galvanized, 5 to 10 66 67 60 00 

Smaller than No. 26 89 94 60 00 

Wire of steel, galvanized, 10 by 16 Ill 18 60 00 

Wire of iron rope, galvanized, 16 by 36 62 38 60 Ott 

Wire cloth and wire nettings, made in meshes of any form, of iron or 

Smaller than No. 16 and not smaller than No. 26 wire gauge 100 75 60 00 

Smaller than No. 26 wire gauge 69 95 60 00 

Galvanized— 

Smaller than No. 16 and not smaller than No. 26 wire gauge 114 21 60 00' 

Not separately enumerated. 

Copper in plates, bars, etc 41 50 20 00 

Copper brazier plates 35 00 30 00 

Lead, and manufactures of— 
Molten and old refuse lead, run into blocks and bars, and old scrap 

lead, fit only to be remanufactured 48 33 30 20> 

Lead ore and lead dross 59 27 30 00 

Pigs and bars 68 97 43 IL 

Sheets, pipes and shot 60 83 45 60 

Sheathing metal 35 00 30 00 

Nickel, In ore, matte, or other crude form, etc., not enumerated 

Zinc, spelter or tutenegue : 

In blocks or pigs 46 35 38 63; 

Old worn out, fit only to be remanufactured 57 65 48 04 

In sheets 70 90 56 74 

Hollow-ware, coated, glazed or tinned 47 36 40 47 

NggcIIgs — 

For knitting or sewing machines 35 00 20 00 

Pens, metallic 43 10 a5 OC 

Type met al 30 15 15 00 

New type for printing 25 00 15 00 

Manufactures of copper 45 00 35 00 

Manufactures of iron and steel, not elsewhere specified— 

Machinerv, not elsewhere specified 45 00 40 00 

Wire rods of steel, not elsewhere specified 4f 00 40 00 

All other manufactures of iron 45 00 40 00 

All other manufactures of steel 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of lead 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of nickel 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of pewter 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of tin 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of zinc 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of gold and silver 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of platinum 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of brass 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of bronze 45 00 40 00 

Manufactures of metal, not elsewhere specified 45 00 40 00 

Total metals, etc $ 40 77 $ 38 47 

SCHEDULE D.— WOODBNWARE. 

House or cabinet furniture, finished $3500 $0000 

Cadar, granadilla, etc., manufactures of 8(; 00 30 00 

Lumber- 
Boards, planks, deals, and other sawed lumber, of hemlock, white- 
wood, sycamore and basswood— 

Planed or finished on one side 21 77 7 28 

Planed or finished on two sides 15 14 7 57 

Planed on two sides, and tongued and grooved 8 00 4 04 

All other articles of sawed lumber, not elsewhere specified— 

Planed or finished on one side 26 10 5 23 

Planed or finished on two sides 22 53 7 51 

Planed on one side and tongued and grooved 2665 888 

Planed on two sides and tongued and grooved 28 95 12 33 

All other manufactures of wood 35 00 30 00 

Total wood and woodenware $ 18 00 $ 17 40 



TARIFF TAXATION. ^^^B^ 30^ 

Tariff-tax 

ARTICLES. $100 worth Mills bill. 

in 1887. 

Not above— schbdulb e.— sugar. 

75 degrees $60 29 $49 50 

76 degrees - 55 60 45 64 

77 degrees 68 28 55 91 

78 degrees 60 59 49 51 

79 degrees 61 70 50 31 

80 degrees 80 42 65 44 

81 degrees 68 97 56 02 

82 degrees 72 37 58 68 

83 degrees '. 70 41 56 98 

84 degrees 88 72 71 69 

85 degrees 79 97 64 46 

. 86 degrees 70 59 56 85 

87 degrees 73 26 58 92 

88 degrees 76 26* 61 31 

89 degrees 73 24 58 74 

90 degrees 84 03 67 31 

91 degrees 79 49 63 59 

92 degrees 77 46 16 90 

93 degrees 72 76 58 09 

94 degrees 78 32 62 44 

95 degrees 84 26 67 10 

96 degrees 78 73 62 63 

97 degrees 79 65 63 31 

98 degrees 83 45 66 26 

99 degrees 86 17 68 35 

Above No. 13 and not above No 16 degrees 86 97 70 75 

Above No. 16 and not above No. 20 89 43 71 54 

Above No. 20 83 91 16 44 



Totalsugar $82 04 X$65 64 



Molasses not above 56 degrees $28 04 $20 OO 

Molasses above 56 degrees 47 26 35 45 

Confectionery, above 30 cents 50 40 

Confectionery, all other 71 40 



$ 47 27 
39 16 


100 47 
59 60 
15 00 

107 60 
26 55 


58 54 
70 96 
23 25 



Total sugar, molasses, etc $78 15 $62 00 

SCHEDULE G.— PROVISIONS. 

Starch- 
Corn or potato $9454 

Rice, and other 97 90 

Rice- 
Cleaned - 113 03 

Uncleaned 71 52 

Rice, floor or rice meal 20 00 

Paddy 134 50 

Raisins 35 40 

Nuts— 

Pea-nuts, not shelled 78 05 

Pea-nuts, shelled 106 44 

Mustard, ground or preserved 38 75 

Total provisions $2438 $2339 

SCHEDULE I. — COTTON AND COTTON GOODS. 

Cotton manufactures of— 
Thread- 
Thread, yarn, warps, or warp yarns, whether single or advanced be- 
yond the condition of single by twisting two or more single yarns 
together, whether on beams or in bundles, skeins or cops, or In any 
other form- 
Valued at not exceeding 25 cents per pound $44 10 $35 00 

Valued at over 25 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound 4230 3500 

Valued at over 40 and not exceeding 50 cents per pound 4538 4000 

Valued at over 50 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 45 21 40 00 

Valued at over 60 and not exceeding 70 cents per pound 50 89 40 00 

Valued at over 70 and not exceeding 80 cents t)er pound 49 55 40 00 

Valued at over 80 and not exceeding $1 per pound 53 49 40 00 

Valued at over $1 per pound 5000 4000 

Cloth— 
Not exceeding 100 threads to the square Inch, counting the warp and 
filling— 
Not bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted oi printed, valued at 

8 cents or less per square yard square yards 48 94 40 00 

Bleached, valued at 10 cents or less per square yard 75 28 40 00 

Dyed, colored, stained, painted or printed, valued at 13 cents or less 
per square yard 73 31 40 00 



310 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Tariff-tax 
per 
ARTICLES. $100 worth Mills bill. 

in 1887. 
Cloth- 
Exceeding 100 and not exceeding 200 threads to the square inch, count- 
ing the warp and filling— 
Not bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted or printed, valued at 

8 cents or less per square yard $56 19 $40 00 

Bleached, valued at 10 cents or less per square yard 55 76 40 00 

Dyed, colored, stained, painted or printed, valued at 13 cents or less 

per square yard 49 23 40 00 

Exceeding 200 threads to the square inch, counting the warp and 
filling— 
Not bleached, dyed, colored, stained, painted or printed— 

Valued at 10 cents or less per square yard 57 54 40 00 

Bleached— 

Valued at 12 cents or less per square yard 51 88 40 00 

Dyed, colored, stained, painted or printed— 

Valued at 15 cents or less per square yard 48 40 40 00 

Thread on spools— 

of 100 yards each spool dozens.... 58 82 40 00 

Total cottons * $39 99 $39 07 

SCHEDULE J.— HEMP, JUTE AND FLAX GOODS. 

Flax- 
Hackled, known as dressed line..... $ 7 06 $ 2 00 

Brown and bleached linens 35 00 25 00 

Hemp Yarn 35 00 15 00 

Yarn 35 00 15 00 

Jute Yarn 35 00 15 00 

Flax, thread, or twine 40 00 25 00 

Plax manufactures 40 00 25 00 

Oilcloth foundations 40 00 25 00 

Oilcloth for floors 40 00 25 00 

Gunny cloth 25 00 

Bags and bagging 40 00 15 00 

Bagging, under 7 cents 54 14 14 00 

Tarred cables, etc 30 14 25 00 

Untarred manilla 32 89 25 00 

TJntarred cordage, all other 30 08 25 00 

Sail duck or canvas for sails 30 00 25 00 

Russia and other sheetings 3500 2500 

Grass cloth, etc 35 00 25 00 

Burlaps, exceeding 60 inches 40 00 25 00 

Manufactures of flax, hemp, etc 35 00 25 00 

Manufactures of grass 30 00 25 00 

Total flax, hemp and jute $28 10 $22 00 

SCHEDULE K.— WOOLEN GOODS. 

Manufactures- 
Cloths, woolen- 
Valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound $89 84 $40 01 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 68 91 40 00 

Shawls, woolen- 
Valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound 88 44 40 00 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 65 41 40 00 

Composed wholly or in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, 

or other animal 61 53 40 00 

All manufactures of every description not specially enumerated or pro- 
vided for, made wholly or in part of— 
Wool- 
Valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound 88 81 40 00 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 64 46 40 00 

Flannels- 
Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound 73 42 40 00 

Valued at above 30 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound 66 20 40 00 

Valued at above 40 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 67 69 40 00 

Valued at above 60 and not exceeding 80 cents per pound 67 65 40 00 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 73 02 40 00 

Blankets- 
Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound 79 66 40 00 

Valued at above 30 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound 63 85 40 00 

Valued at above 40 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 69 56 40 00 

Valued at above 60 and not exceeding 80 cents per pound 69 36 40 00 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 70 30 40 00 

Hats of wool- 
Valued at above 30 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound 40 00 

Valued at above 40 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 7304 4000 

Valued at above 60 and not exceeding 80 cents per pound 66 22 40 00 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 52 07 40 00 



TARIFF TAXATION. 311 

Tariff-tax 

ARTICLES. flO(fworth -^""s bill. 

in 1887. 
Knit goods, and all goods made on knitting frames- 
Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound $88 33 $40 00 

Valued at above 30 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound 65 20 40 00 

Valued at above 40 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 69 14 40 00 

Valued at above 60 and not exceeding 80 cents per pound <^ 69 63 40 00 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 62 58 40 00 

Balmorals- 
Valued at above 30 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound 67 72 40 00 

Valued at above 40 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 65 59 40 00 

Valued at above 60 and not exceeding 80 cents per pound 68 15 40 00 

V alued at above 80 cents per pound 66 35 40 00 

Yarns, woolen and worsted- 
Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound 69 40 40 00 

Valued at above 30 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound 67 90 40 00 

Valued at above 40 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 68 08 40 00 

Valued at above 60 and not exceeding 80 cents per pound 69 08 40 00 

Valued at above 80 cents per pound 68 79 40 00 

All manufactures of every description not specially enumerated or pro- 
vided for, made wbolly or in part of— 
Worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals (except such 
as are composed in part of wool)/— 

Valued at not exceeding 30 cents per pound 76 49 40 00 

Valued at above 30 and not exceeding 40 cents per pound , 69 38 40 00 

Valued at above 40 and not exceeding 60 cents per pound 68 28 40 00 

Valued at above 60 and not exceeding 80 cents per pound 68 15 40 00 

Valued at above 60 cents per pound 71 99 40 00 

Bunting 80 75 40 00 

Dress goods, women's and children's coat linings, Italian cloths, and 

goods of like description- 
Composed in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other 
animals- 
Valued at not exceeding 20 cents per square yard 67 89 40 00 

Valued at above 30 cents per square yard 69 06 40 GO 

Composed wholly of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat or 
other animals, or of a mixture of them, and all such goods of like 
description, vs'lth selvedges made wholly or in part of other materials, 
or with threads of other materials introduced for the purpose of 
changing the classification- 
Weighing 4 ounces or less per square yard 83 96 40 00 

All weighing over 4 ounces per square yard 69 68 40 00 

Clothing, ready-made, and wearing apparel of every description not 
specially enumerated or provided for, and balmoral skirts and skirt- 

^ ing, and goods of similar description, or used for like purposes 54 18 45 00 

Cloaks, dolmans, jackets, talmas, ulsters, or other outside garments for 
ladies' and children's apparel, and goods of similar description, or 

used for like pm-poses 67 74 45 Oft 

Webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, gal- 
loons, fringes, gimps, cords, cords and tassels, dress trimmings, 
head nets, buttons or barrel buttons, or buttons of other forms for 
tassels or ornaments, wrought by hand or braided by machinery, 
made of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat or other ani- 
mals, or of which wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat or 

other animals, is a component material 66 31 50 OO 

Carpets and carpetmg of all kinds— 

Aubusson, Axminster, and Chenille carpets, and carpets woven 

whole for rooms 47 14 40 Oa 

Brussels carpets 59 03 40 00- 

Druggets and bookings, printed, colored, or otherwise 73 93 40 00 

Mats, screens, hassocks and rugs, not exclusively of vegetable mater- 
ial 40 00 40 00 

Of wool, flax or cotton, or parts of either, or other material not speci- 
ally enumerated or provided for 4000 4000 

Patent velvet and tapestry velvet carpet, printed on the warp or 

otherwise 55 10 40 00 

Saxony, Wilton and Tournay velvet carpets square yards, 54 37 40 00 

Tapestry Brussels, printed on the warp or otherwise .... do 61 13 40 00 

Treble ingrain, three-ply and worsted chain Venetion carpets do 45 79 40 00 

Yarn, Venetian and two-ply ingrain carpets do 44 70 40 00 

Hemp and Jute carpets do 24 76 24 76 

Belts or felts, endless, for paper or printing machines. do 52 87 30 00 

Total wool and woolens $58 81 $38 69 



312 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

Tariff-tax 
per 
ARTICLES. flOO worth Mills biil. 

in 1887. 
SCHEDULE M.— BOOKS, PAPERS, ETC. 

Paper and manufactures of : 
Paper- 
Printing paper, unsized, used for books and newspapers exclusively. ... $ 15 00 $ 12 00 

Sized or glued sutable only for printing paper 20 00 15 00 

Boxes 35 00 25 00 

Envelopes 35 00 20 00 

Paper Hangings, etc 20 00 25 00 



Total paper and manufactures of $ 22 13 $ 22 06 

SCHEDULE N.— SUNDRIES. 

Beads and ornament* except amber !•...<• ku.... ..mm.., $ 50 00 

Blacking. • 25 00 

Bonnets, hats, etc., no change m rates 30 OO 

Brooms 35 00 

Brushes 30 oO 

Canes, finished 35 01 

Card clothing square feet, 44 12 

Card clothing, steel tempered do 48 16 

Carriage and parts 35 00 

Dolls and toys 35 00 

Fans of all kinds 35 00 

Ostrich feathers 50 00 

All other dressed feathers 50 00 

Feathers and artificial fiowers 50 oo 

Friction matches 35 00 

Gloves, kid or leather 50 00 

Gun wads 35 00 

Gutta percha manufactures 35 00 

Human hair, clean or drawn 30 00 

Human hair, manufactured 35 00 

Bracelets, etc., hair 35 00 

Hats, materials for (no change in rates) 20 00 

Hat bodies, of cotton 35 00 

Hatters' plush 25 00 

Inks and ink powders 30 00 

Japanned ware 40 00 

Marble in block, roughed or squared— 

Veined, etc 51 97 

Manufactures of 50 00 

Papier-mache articles > 30 00 

Percussion caps 40 00 

Philosophical apparatus 35 00 

Umbrella ribs, etc 40 00 

All other umbrellas, etc., (except silk and alpaca) 40 00 

Watches, etc. No change in rate 25 00 

Webbing of cotton, etc 35 00 

Tofal sundries ,,. $36 86 $25 03 

The rates fixed by the McKinley bill are shown by another document sent out 
to speakers by the Democratic Congressional Committee. 



$ 40 00 


20 06 


30 00 


20 00 


20 00 


20 00 


35 00 


42 00 


30 00 


30 00 


30 00 


35 00 


35 00 


35 00 


25 00 


40 00 


25 00 


30 00 


20 00 


2)06 


25 00 


20 00 


30 00 


15 00 


20 00 


30 00 


40 16 


30 00 


25 00 


35 00 


25 00 


30 00 


30 00 


25 00 


30 00 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



313 



IV. 



THE HISTORY OF TARIFF CHANGES. 



A Complete Account of American Tariff liCgislation, from 
tbe Foundation of the GoTernment to the Passage of the 
McKinley Bill. 

The first, tariff act was passed on the 4th of July, 1789 ; the last one on the 3d 
of March, 1883. Including these two there have heen fifty-five tariff acts passed 
in ninety-nine years. Most of them did not make radical changes in the tariff. 
The tariffs usually considered most important by historians were passed as follows,, 
and they have all been named, also, as follows : 



Hamilton tariff 1789 

Calhoun tariff 1816 

Clay tariff 1824 

Abomination tariff 1828 



Compromise tariff 1833 

Whig tariff 1842 

Walker tariff 1846 

Morrill tariff 1861 



The general effects of these various tariffs, and of the modifications made in 
them between times, may be traced in the following table, which shows the aver- 
age rate of tax paid on all taxed imports for each year since 1791. There was 
always a free list — always absolute free trade in many things — but here are the 
average rates for the year on the things actually taxed : 



Year. 
17fl 


Per cent. 
15.34 


Year. 
1817 


Per cent. 
33.90 


Year. 
1843 


Per cent. 
29.19 


Year. 

1869 


Per cent. 

47 22. 


1792 


11.54 

14.68 


1818 


16.78 


1844 


36.88 


1870 

1871 

1872 

1873 


47.08 


1V93 


1819 


29.81 


1845 


34.45 


43 95 


1794.... 


17.10 


1820 


26.59 


1846 


33.35 


41 35 


1795 


11.21 


1821 


30.99 


1847 

1848 


28.02 

26.28 


38 07 


1796 


12.02 

15.60 


1822 


27.13 


1874 

1875 

1876 


38 53 


1797 


1823 

1824 

1825 


39.21 

50.21 

50.24 


1849 

1850 

1851 


26.11 

27.14 

...26.63 


40.62 


1798 ,. 


19.99 

19.70 

17.42 


44 74 


1799 


1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 


42 89 


1800 


1826 


49.26 


1852 


27.38 


42.75 

44.8T 

43 4.8 


1801 


IR.fil 


1827 

1828 


53.76 

47.59 


1853 


25.93 


1802 . sn.fi7 


1854 


25.61 


1803 


20.52 


1829 


54.18 


1855 


26 82 


1881 

1882 


43 20 


1804 


22.76 


1830 


61.69 


1856 


26.05 


.42 66 


1805 


19.19 


1831 

1832 


47.38 

42.96 


ia57 

1858 


22.45 

22.43 


1883 


. . 42 45 


1806 


21.22 

30.09 


1884 

1885 

1886 


41.61 


1807 


1833 


38 25 


1859 

1860 

1861 .... 


19.56 

19.67 

18.84 


45.86 

. . 45 55 


1808 


37.22 


1834 

1835 

1836 

1837 


40.19 

40.38 

34.94 

39.18 


1809 


18.80 


1887 

1888 


47.10 

45 63 


1810 


14.07 


1862 

1863 

1864 . . 


36.20 

32.62 

. . .36.69 


1811 


35.62 


1889 


45 13 


1812 


13.07 


1838 


41 33 


Estimated 
under Mc 
bill over.. 


rate 
Kinley 

6000 


1813 


69.03 


1839 


31 77 


1865 

1866 

1867 

1868 


47.56 

48.45 

46.67 


1814 


46.79 

6.84 

27. Q4. 


1840 


34,39 


1815 

1816 


1841 

1842 


34.56 

25.81 











40 



314 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The reader will be surprised to observe that the highest average rate was in 
1813 and the lowest in 1815, although there intervened no important change in the 
law, and that the rate for 1813 was ten times as high as for 1815. Washington 
never lived to see the tariff average as high as 20 per cent. — less than half the rate 
left by the Mills bill— though the year before he died, 1798, shaved it pretty close. 
It was not until 1813, when the Government was 24 years old, and was in the midst 
of war, that the average rate reached the point proposed in the Mills bill. It has 
passed that point in only 27 of the 98 years covered by the table, and 16 of these 
have been since 1861, when the Morrill bill passed. 

The average rate collected in 1887 has been exceeded but thirteen times in our 
history, and eight of these were before the war. The highest series of rates col- 
lected for any term of seven years was from 1824 to 1830, inclusive. It actually 
averaged for the seven years more than 52 per cent. Numerous other interesting 
•comparisons will occur to the student. 

THE RATES ON GOODS IN COMMON USE. 

So much for the general average rate collected on all dutiable goods. Now let 
lis tabulate as best we can briefly the history of the rates enacted on certain selected 
articles of common use. This is a difficult task, for the reason that there are two 
kinds of tariff taxes — specific and ad valorem. A specific tax or duty is so much on 
the pound, yard, gallon, barrel or bushel, etc. An ad valorem duty is so much on the 
dollar's worth. How can we compare these ? How can we compare a tax of ten 
cents a yard, under one tariff, with a tax of twenty per cent, on the cost price, under 
another tariff ? If we knew the foreign cost of the cloth taxed ten cents a yard we 
could do it, but it is only within recent years that the Government has told us that, 
or even instructed its custom-house officers to find it out. 

To confuse matters still more, the present tariff often levies both kinds of 
duties on the same article. 

Thus on one of the six classes into which women's and children's dress goods 
are divided, the tax is six cents a square yard (specific) and 35 per cent, (ad valo- 
rem.) But this is not the oddest nor most confusing feature about it, for if the 
goods weigh over four ounces per square yard the tax is levied in a still different 
way, and instead of six or eight cents a yard, it is 50 cents a pound, plus 35 per 
cent. If past tariffs were as intricate as the present one our task would indeed be 
hopeless. 

But in all tariffs there are clauses stating what the tax shall be on all articles 
of the several great classes "'not otherwise provided for" (n. o. p.) Into these 
n. o. p. clauses are dumped the articles of each great class which tlie tax layers 
couldn't think of, or were afraid they couldn't with sufficient accuracy describe in 
their proper places. The taxes they laid on these were of necessity simple and 
usually ad valorem, and furnish a key to the mind of the legislator. If he laid a 
tax of 20 per cent, on cottons " n. o. p." you may well guess that he thought he 
was putting about an average of 20 per cent, on all cottons he did provide for. 
The following table occasionally makes this use of the n. o. p. classes but always 
with the letters attached : 



TARIFF TAXATION. 



315 



Bates of duty levied on articles of necessity under all tariffs since 1791. 





^, 


u 
o 








I 

da 














Tariff Act of the 
Year. 


u 
t 
d 
1 


Pi 

s 

o 

o 

1 


1 
1 


be 


i 
1 


Id 


It 

id 


1? 


s o 

a«r 


ft 

d 


i 

% 

;3 




1 


$ 


1^ 




o ^ 


§ 3 

1" 




r/1 




3 


1 


1789 


free 


5 free 


5 


5 


5 


5 


5 




5 


in 


10 


1790-9] 


3c 


1)4 free 


5 


5 


5 


5 


7J< 


5 


5 


12^ 


10 


1792 


3c 


7>^ free 
12>^ free 
15 ifree 


7^ 
10 


73^ 
10 




7>^ 
12>^ 
12 X 


10 


10 


7K 
12>^ 

12 J< 


15 


10 


1794-5. . 


3c 


free 


15 


15 


20 


15 


1797-1800 


3c 


12X 


12^ 


free 


15 


15 


20 


15 


1804-7-8 


3c 


17>^!frP(fi 


15 


15 


free 


15 


17X 


Yi)A 


15 


22^ 


17/^ 


1812-15 


6c 


35 
n.o.p 


free 


30 
n.o.p. 


30 


free 


30 


35 


85 


30 


45 


35 






1816-19 ^ 


3c 
3c 


20 
25 


free 


25 
30-33K 


25 

25 


free 
free 


80 
30 


20 
25 


20 
25 


25 
25 


20 

. +3 


20 


1824-25 


20 


1828-30 


8c 


25 


'^rom 


40@45 


a5 


free 


30 


25 


25 


25 


;iS^^ 


20 


1832 . . 


3c 


25 


0@80 
0to)78 


25 


free 


25 


25 


25 


25 




20 


-.ooo 1836 


3c 


24 


44 


24 




24 


24 


24 


24 


20 


1833 i^:::::::::::.: 


3c 


23 




38 


23 


free 


23 


23 


23 


23 


^ o 


20 


1842 


3c 


30 


5©60 


40 


25 


free 


30 


30 


30 


25 


?-5 


30 


1846 


free 
free 


25 

19 


30 
0@24 


30 
24 


20 
15 


30 
24 


30 
24 


30 
24 


30 
24 


20 
15 


30 
24 


30 


1857 


24 










12c. a 


















1861 


free 


30 


5(2^ 


b 25 


s 


20 


30 


30 


30 


30 


30 


20@25 








25¥ct. 






















50c. & 


M 
















1867 . 


3c 


35 


*40 


35 Vet 


s 


20 


35 


35 


45 


40 


40 


25@40 










35c. & 














1883 


free 


35 


*36 


35@40 


*71 


20 


35 


45 


45 


40 


45 


25@60 





Ttie figures marked with a * are the average rates collected on the next year's im- 
ports. All the others are at the rates embodied in the law. 

UPS a:nd downs of the wool takifp. 

The history of the wool tariff needs to be elaborated a little. Down to 1824 
wool was free and cotton was taxed. Then wool was divided into two classes, 
according to value, and if valued at less than 10 cents a pound the tax was 15 per 
per cent., otherwise 30, and afterwards 30. In 1828 the tax on high grade wool 
was enormously increased. For eight years it remained at 4 cents a pound and 40 
per cent., and then the compromise tariff began to reduce it a little. The maximum 
figures given from 1828 to 1842 are the highest that could possibly be collected 
under the complex law, and doubtless far higher than the average actually col- 
lected, though that was probably 50 per cent. In 1832 low grade wool was again 
made free, and has never since been heavily taxed. Wool is now (since 1867) 
divided into three classes, " clothing," " combing " and " carpet," and they paid last 
year 55 per cent., 43 per cent, and 25 per cent, respectively. 

THE PRESENT RATE WOULD ONCE HAVE BEEN THOUGHT ROBBERY. 



The first tariff was the lightest. It was gradually raised until the war of 1812 
broke out, and then it was doubled at a stroke. The genuine high protective sys- 
tem was adopted in 1816, under the influence of Calhoun, who bitterly regretted it. 
Webster was a free trader when the tariff was raised in 1824, but faced about and 
helped to raise it again in 1828. This was called the " tariff of abominations," be- 
cause the free traders tried to kill it by loading it down with abominations, but to 



316 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

their great surprise it passed with all its sins upon it. It almost led to war and did 
lead to the compromise tariff of 1833, which proposed a gradual horizontal 
reduction. 

In 1842 the Whigs raised the tariff ; in 1846 the Democrats reduced it ; in 1857 
the new Republican party had got control of the lower House and with Democratic 
help reduced the tariff again, to the lowest point reached since 1816. Four years 
later the Republicans adopted the Morrill, or War Tariff, and gradually raised it 
until 1867 ; its extremest features being adopted after the war was over. In 1872 
they passed a horizontal reduction of 10 per cent., which they repealed two years 
later. 

In 1882 they appointed a Tariff Commission, and it recommended a reduction 
which|would have left the average rate about 30 per cent, on dutiable goods. On 
the 3d of March, 1883, they passed a law which reduced some duties and raised 
others, among them, as will be seen by the table, those on glass and earthenware, but 
leaving the general average about the same. All subsequent reduction bills have 
failed to pass the lower House until Saturday, July 21, 1888, when the Mills bill 
placing wool, lumber and some other articles on the free list, and calculated to reduce 
the average rate on dutiable imports to 42.49 per cent., was passed by a vote of 162 
to 149. 

The foregoing was prepared by Mr. H. J Philpott, in 1888. 

The McKinley bill levies a duty of 11 cents per pound on wools of the first 
class and 12 cents on the second class. Wools of the third class worth 12 cents or 
less per pound are to pay 3| cents and worth over 12 cents, 8 cents per pound. 
Unwashed wool is wool just as taken from the sheep, without cleansing. Washed 
w^ool is wool washed with water on the sheep's back. Wool washed in any other 
manner than on the sheep's back is to be considered scoured wool. 

Washed wools of the first and third classes shall pay twice the duty on 
unwashed wools of these classes and the duty on scoured wools of all classes shaU 
be three times the rates on unwashed wool of the same classes, except wool of the 
third class worth twelve cents or less. This pays two and a-half times the rate on 
unwashed. Wools of class three improved by mixing are raised to one or the 
other of the other classes and subject to the duties on the class to which it is 
raised. 

The McKinley bill makes a general revisi onof the tariff to " check imports" 
and consequently increases rates. It reduces a few duties on unimportant articles 
and places some comparatively insignificant items on the free list; sugar, the 
greatest revenue producing article in the tariff, being the only item of consequence 
transferred from the dutiable schedules. 



SPECIAL ORDERS. 317 



SPECIAL ORDERS. 



CURTAILING AMENDMENT AND DEBATE-SETTING ASIDE 

THE NEW RULES. 



The rules of order of the House during Democratic control 
were possibly imperfect. So are all rules imperfect ; but the code 
that was in force during that time erred, if it erred at all, entirely 
on the side of liberty, and its spirit was the idea that the House of 
Bepresentatives was a deliberative body and that the minority 
had some rights that were sacred and which the Speaker must 
respect. Members on the floor were permitted to make such 
motions as they thought proper in regard to pending measures 
and there was no distinction made between the motions coming 
from the majority and the minority sides of the House. It is 
true that the Speaker had power to recognize either member he 
thought proper to recognize when more than one addressed the 
chair. This is a thing that cannot be avoided under any code of 
rules that can be devised under which any business can be trans- 
acted. It is a far-reaching power and is much liable to abuse, 
but it is an absolutely necessary result of the nature of legisla- 
tive bodies. 

Under the present rules there is not a single motion of any 
nature whatever that the Speaker need entertain or put to the 
House unless he desires to do so. Clause 10 of Rule XYI pro- 
vides: 

No dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker. 

Under this clause the Speaker has been careful to exclude 
every motion that he though^- likely to result, mediately or im- 
mediately, to the disadvantage of the measures he has favored 
or advantageously to those to which he has been opposed. Time 
and time again, against the protest of members and against 
their solemn assurance that the motions were not dilatory, but 
were made in good faith, he has refused to entertain the motions 
they made and has then refused to entertain appeals from his 
decisions. 

Any one having the slightest acquaintance with parliamentary 
proceedings will at once see the situation that must exist under 



318 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

this provision, especially when the Speaker is disposed to look 
upon the minority as so many men sent to Washington by the 
people to be counted by him to make up a quorum to enable the 
majority to transact such business as it may decide upon in 
caucus. 

To the average man these two powers would seem to afford 
ample facilities to cut off amendments, motions, and debates, 
but sometimes, under the express provisions of the rules, the 
Speaker must allow members to offer their motions and amend- 
ments and to discuss them. Whenever he can forbid such pro- 
ceedings by construction of the rules, or by refusal to recognize 
members, or by refusal to entertain their motions after recog- 
nizing them, he does so forbid them if it suits his pleasure to do 
so. But when, under the express provisions of the rules, he is 
unable to avoid allowing them their rights, a special order is 
reported from the Committee on Rules to prevent amendment 
and cut off debate. As stated elsewhere in this volume, the 
result of this method of legislation has been that not a single 
measure of importance about which there has been a material 
difference of opinion has passed the House in accordance with 
the rules. 

In previous Congresses it was the rule in reporting special 
orders, when, upon rare occasions, they were reported, to allow 
the widest range of amendment and debate, and also that the 
measures to which they applied should be taken up at some 
future day reasonably far ahead, in order tjaat members might 
have an opportunity to mature their amendments and prepare 
themselves for intelligent discussion. 

In this Congress, as will be seen, the rule, almost without 
important exception, has been to provide for the consideration 
of measures immediately upon the adoption of the order, without 
previous notice of the time to members, and without their being 
allowed to present their reasons for favoring or opposing the 
legislation. It is true that the Republicans have always learned 
in advance what was to be done, and have thus been prepared, 
but the Democrats have had to meet their opponents without 
preparation. 

Clause 5 of Rule XXIII provides : 

All motions or propositions, originating either in the House or Senate, involving 
a tax or charge upon the people ; all proceedings touching appropriations of money, 
or bills making appropriations of money or property, or requiring such appropria- 
tion to be made, or authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or 
releasing any liability to the United States for money or property, shall be first 
considered in a committee of the whole, and a point of order under this rule shall 
be good at any time before the consideration of a bill has commenced. 

Once in committee of the whole, the measure is taken up, 
discussed, and, section by section or paragraph by paragraph, 
considered and amended. Clause 6 provides that the committee 
may close debate upon any section or paragraph or on the pend- 



SPECIAL ORDERS. 319 

ing amendments only, *^but this shall not preclude further 
amendment, to be decided without debate." 

The effect of a special order, when the contrary is not expressly 
provided for, is to take the measure to which it applies out of 
the committee and into the House itself for consideration. 

The following gives the substance of the special orders re- 
ported to and, except one of thejn, adopted by the House : 

1. Providing that March 4 and 5 should be fixed for the consideration, in 
committee and in the House, of public building bills, the consideration to begin 
after one hour consumed in morning business. — Record^ page 1812. 

2. That immediately after the morning hour this day the House shall resolve 
itself into committee of the whole on the State of the Union for the consideration 
of the bill establishing a temporary government in Oklahoma, which consideration 
shall continue during the legislative day and until to-morrow at 4 o'clock, when 
the previous question shall be ordered on the bill and amendments. — Record, 
page 2222. 

3. That March 25, the day after the reporting of the resolution, immediately after 
the approval of the journal, the House shall consider the W'c^ld's Fair bill, and, 
unless previouly otherwise ordered by the House, the previous question shall be 
ordered at 4 o'clock that day. — Record, page 2654. 

4. That to-day, immediately after the passage of this resolution, the bill to admit 
Wyoming to the Union shall be considered, and continue until 6:30 o'clock; then 
a recess ordered until 11 o'clock Thursday, and at 1 o'clock on that day the 
previous question ordered on the three amendments offered by the minority and 
on the passage of the bill. — Record, page 2746. 

5. That the House meet at 11 o'clock to-morrow and next day, and after sixty 
minutes of the morning hour shall consider the bill to admit Idaho, and at three 
o'clock on the second day previous question ordered on bill and amendments. — 
Record, page 2996. 

6. Resolution that committee of the whole House on the state of the Union 
be discharged from further consideration of the bill to define and regulate the 
jurisdiction of the United States Courts, and that the House immediately proceed 
to consider same until 5 o'clock on this day, when previous question ordered •n 
bill and amendments. — Record, page 3524. 

This gave about one hour and thirty minutes of debate. 

7. That to-day, after the adoption of this resolution, the House proceed to con- 
sider Senate bill 389, for which House bill No. 8297 may be substituted. Previous 
question ordered at 4 o'clock on bill and amendments. — Record, page 4189. This 
was the *' pauper pension bill." 

8. That after the passage of this the trust bill, copyright and bankruptcy bills, 
and such other bills as the Judiciary Committee shall call up, shall be considered 
until close of session Friday. — Record, page 4251. 

This gave the remainder of that day and all day Friday for 
all these bills. 



320 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGISr BOOK. 

9. Besolmd, That after the passage of this resolution the House shall assemble 
at 11 o'clock a. m. on each legislative day. That immediately after the reading of 
the journal and the consideration of conference reports and House bills with Senate 
amendments the House, shall resolve itself into committee of the whole House on 
the state of the Union to consider House bill 9416, to reduce the revenue and 
equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes. That said bill shall be read 
through, commencing with paragraph 111, and shall then from day to day be open 
to amendment upon any part thereof following paragraph 110. That on Wednes- 
day, May 21, at 12 o'clock M., said bill with all amendments recommenced by the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union shall be reported to the 
House. — Record, page 4930. 

This was the Tariff bill. For effect of the resolution, see 
Mr. McMillin's speech under '' Tariff." 

10. That immediately after reading of journal the next day the rest of the day 
to be given to public buildings in committee of the whole. — Record, page 5711. 

11. That upon the passage of resolution House shall consider the silver bill until 
June 7 at 3 o'clock, when previous question on bill and amendments. — Records 
page 6015. 

This was adopted June 5. 

12. Relates to consideration of bills " to the consideration whereof no objec- 
tion shall be made."— i?<?cor6Z, page 6382. 

13. Resolution making silver bill with Senate amendments (including free 
coinage amendment) a special order for that day and ordering previous question 
next day at 2 o'clock. — Record, page 6976. 

14. Resolved, That immediately after the passage of this resolution, the House 
proceed to consider House bill No. 11045 until JHily 2 at 2 o'clock, when the previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any pending amendments 
and upon a substitute for the whole bill, which the member in charge of the bill 
shall have a right to offer ; that during the last two days amendments may be 
offered to any part of the bill in the House, with debate under the five-minute rule ; 
that this shall not interfere with the general appropriation bills. — Record, page 7040. 

This is the Force bill. 

15. Is a resolution that the House refused to consider. 

16. Makes original package bill special order from immediately after adoption 
of resolution until immediately after reading of journal, July 21 (about one day), 
when the previous question ordered on bill and all amendments. Then the bank- 
ruptcy bill, a special order until after reading of journal, July 23, when previous 
question ordered on bill and amendments to passage. — Record, page 8042-7. 

17. That after two hours' debate motion to non-concur in order on Indian 
Appropriation bills with Senate amendments, and House must vote on such motion. 
— Record, page 9036. 

18. That August 19, 20, 21 and 23 and August 26 and 27, after 60 minutes of 
the morning hour be fixed for consideration of the Agricultural College Aid bill, 
with 2 houra' debate ; thea the Meat Inspection bill, for 2 hours ; then the Com- 



SPECIAL ORDERS. 321 

pound Lard bill until 4 o'clock August 23 ; then on August 26, the Option oill until 
next day at 3 o'clock ; that on August 20, 21, 23, 26 and 27 House shall meet at 11 
o'clock. — Record, page 9546. 

Adopted August 19. 

19. Is the special order relating to labor bills and may be found under " Labor 
Legislation." 

It is usual and generally proper to provide in special orders, 
as was provided in nearly all these, that they shall give way to 
certain important and privileged matters, and no objection is 
urged to such provisions in these orders, but it is important to 
know that the House meets at 12 o'clock unless otherwise 
ordered, and rarely sits so late as 6 o'clock ; that the ** morning 
hour "is of indefinite length and frequently consumes several 
times sixty minutes and that these provisions for important and 
privileged,matters nearly always result in the consumption of 
a great deal of time that might be devoted to the measures to 
which the special order relates. 

The House, in the Forty-eighth, Forty -ninth, and Fiftieth 
Congresses, was Democratic and was working under the rules 
that were superseded by this new-fangled code. 

In the Forty-eighth Congress there were three special orders, 
one giving two days in each month to District of Columbia busi- 
ness, one giving two special days to business relating to the 
Territories, and the other relating to business to which fewer 
than five members should object. These were all for both ses- 
sions. Two of them, it will be observed, were in the nature of 
amendments to the rules. 

In the Forty-ninth Congress, covering both sessions, there 
were adopted nine special orders, two of which were to provide 
for evening sessions to dispose of business. 

During the first session of the Fiftieth Congress ^ve special 
orders were adopted relating to various measures, one assigning 
an additional day in each month to District of Columbia busi- 
ness; one assigning evening sessions to private pension bills and 
bills to remove political disabilities; one closing general debate 
(not amendments and debate theron) on the Mills bill, and the 
other assigning a day for labgr bills. During the second session 
two such orders were adopted, one for the immediate considera- 
tion of a bill to pension the widow of Gen. Phil. Sheridan, the 
other for the immediate consideration of a bill placing Gen. 
Eosecrans on the retired list of the army. Except as indicated 
these orders related to future and not to immediate consideration, 
and, as to every single measure of any public importance what- 
ever, afforded ample opportunity for preparation and for debate. 

During six sessions, running through six years, the Demo- 
crats adopted nineteen special orders, some or which, being 
permanent, cannot be properly considered such orders at all, 
and several others of which related to purely private bills and 
to bills to which there was substantially no objection. 



322 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

During one session of ten months the Republicans, operating 
under the new code, have adopted eighteen purely special orders 
to get rid of their rules. 

The first motion made after the adoption of the rules was 
by Mr. Cannon, to print 1,000 copies of the new code, without 
reference to the committee of the whole, and was therefore in 
violation of the very rules it provided to have printed. It was 
significant as indicating the course that was to be pursued. 

Fully to appreciate the importance of these orders the mag- 
nitude of the bills to which they related must be considered. 

But what was the result as to the necessary measures pro- 
viding for the administration of the Government ? Several 
measures of extremely questionable character were rushed 
through by equally questionable means, but the following shows 
the condition of the bills that must be passed if the Government 
is to go on : 

Condition of appropriation hills June 30, 1888. 

Laws : Indian ; Military Academy ; pension. 

In conference : Agricultural; diplomatic and consular ; District of Columbia; 
legislative, executiye, and judicial ; Post-Office. 
Pending in Senate : Army ; river and harbor. 

Pending in Senate Committee on Appropriations: Navy; sundry civil. 
Not reported to the House : Fortification. 

Condition of appropriation bills June 80, 1890. 

Laws, or in hands of President for approval: Army; Military Academy; 
Navy; pension; Post-Office. 

Agreed on in conference : District of Columbia. 

In conference : Diplomatic and consular ; fortification ; legislative, executive, 
and judicial. 

Passed the Senate to-day : Agricultural. 

Pending in the Senate : River and harbor. 

Pending in the Senate Committee on Appropriations : Indian ; sundry civil. ■'^ 

At the end of the last fiscal year, the last date above given, 
the Republican Congress had to adopt a resolution extending the 
appropriation bills that were passed by the Democratic House 
for last year over thirty days of the current year. 

Well did the Speaker say in his elegant language : 

" Thank God, the House of Representatives is no longer a deliberative body. 
There are not now thirty or forty members with their bellies full of speeches six 
or seven hours long standing around waiting to spout th«m olf." 



TRUSTS. 323 



TRUSTS. 



JOHN SHERMAN, RUSSELL A. ALGER, AND THESE 

PRIVATE AFFAIRS-AN ACT RELATING 

TO TJ?USTS. 



The Republican party having done all it possibly could to 
create and foster trusts throughout its career of power, Sena- 
tor Sherman, on the 4th of December, 1889, introduced Senate 
bill No. 1, to declare unlawful trusts and combinations in 
restraint of trade and production. It will be remembered that 
it was charged that in the Chicago convention in 1888 Gen. R. A. 
Alger bought Mr. Sherman's Southern delegates away from him, 
and it is generally supposed that this bill was introduced to 
enable its author to make a few remarks concerning the business 
ventures in which Gen. Alger had been engaged and which had 
been ventilated by the courts of Michigan. 

Whether or not this was his sole object may be questioned, 
but the bill as introduced was of little, if any, other account ; 
and he took advantage of the opportunity to lay before the Sen- 
ate the decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan in the case of 
Richardson vs. Russell A. Alger et aL, handed down November 
15, 1889, by which a trust in which that worthy Republican was 
the leader was declared illegal. 

The bill was referred to the Committee on Finance, the wet 
nurse of tariff trusts, and by it was reported back to the Senate, 
still, of course, in a chaotic condition such as to make it wholly 
abortive. 

The bill contained three short sections, wholly nebulous and 
mostly unconstitutional. This was the whole bill that was to 
deal with this large subject pertaining to what Mr. Blaine pro- 
nounced largely private affairs with which the public had 
nothing especially to do. The bill was debated for some time, 
its defects and unconstitutional provisions pointed out, and then 
it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary to be put in 
better shape. It was reported back in an amended shape, and, 
as the Democrats had all along manifested a disagreeable dispo- 
sition to make it more stringent and had made unpleasant sug- 
gestions of amending it by placing the products of trusts on tr^e 



324 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

free list — thus putting a stop to fat-frying — the measure was 
pushed through the Senate. 

It passed the House with amendments, among which was 
one offered by Mr. Bland, Democrat, of Missouri, aimed at the 
beef combine especially and at all such combines generally. 
That amendment was as follows : 

Every contract or agreement entered into for the purpose of preventing com- 
petition in tlie sale or purchase of a commodity transported from one State or 
Territory to be sold in another, or so contracted to be sold, or to prevent com- 
petition in transportation of persons or property from one State or Territory into 
another, shall be deemed unlawful within the meaning of this act : Provided^ That 
the contracts here enumerated shall not be construed to exclude any other contract 
or agreement declared unlawful in this act. 

The bill then went to the Senate, was referred to the 
Judiciary Committee, which reported it back with an amend- 
ment to destroy the Bland amendment ; the House refused to 
concur in the Senate amendment ; a conference was ordered ; its 
report was disagreed to by the House ; a second conference was 
ordered, and its report was agreed to, which left the bill as it 
passed the Senate, without the Bland amendment. So the beef 
combine escaped the penalty of the amendment by the action of 
the Senate. 

The bill as passed has eight sections, and it owes whatever 
efficacy it may have to the efforts of the Democratic Senators 
and Representatives who insisted upon amending it. They 
failed in their attempts to make it a really good law, but suc- 
ceeded in making some amendments that may result beneficially 
to the people. 

The different references of this bill to committees, the 
debates and conferences on it, and its whole course indicate the 
tribulations through which a measure at first entitled ''A bill to 
declare unlawful trusts and combinations in restraint of trade 
and production" passed before it became "An act to protect 
trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopo- 
lies " — a change not only of title but of substance, as in its pres- 
ent form it relates to railroad companies in their pools, etc., as 
well as to trusts, though it is the opinion of many that it stops 
far short of being of any value. 



A PAUPER PENSION ACT. 325 



"A PAUPER PENSION ACT." 



BAD FAITH— BROKEN PROMISES MADE TO SOLDIERS. 



Failure by $50,000,000 to Provide for the Payment of 
Pensions— ;N^o Service Pensions. 

The Republican party throughout the last campaign promised 
the soldiers that they should have whatever they wanted, and 
no language sufficiently strong could be found with which to 
denounce Mr. Cleveland for vetoing a general pension bill 
known as the '^ Pauper Pension Bill." 

Now, how has this Republican Congress kept the promise 
made to the soldiers ? First, it must not be overlooked that it 
has failed to appropriate enough money by nearly $50,000,000 to 
meet the expenses under the pension laws for the next year. 
Let Hon. Alvin P. Hovey, Republican governor of Indiana and 
president of the Service Pension Association of the United 
States, answer the question. 

Among other things he said in his Faneuil Hall speech, 
August 11, 1890 : 

There are at least four claims that our Government should not refuse : 

1. A service pension to all honorably discharged soldiers and sailors during 
the term of their natural lives. 

2. Arrearages to disabled soldiers. 

3. One hundred and sixty acres of land of the public domain. 

4. The equalization of the payment received by them, between the greenback 
and the silver or gold dollar. 

He then recites the resolutions adopted by the Grand Army 
at its twenty-second encampment at Columbus, Ohio, September, 
1888, and reaffirmed at the encampment at Milwaukee, August 
30, 1889, and continues : 

I had the honor of presenting to the present Congress petitions of nearly 
every Grand Army Post in the United States, representing nearly 500,000 veterans, 
praying for the passage of a law in conformity with these resolutions. 

All these petitions were wholly unheeded and a bill was formulated and re- 
ported by the Invalid Pensions Committee of the House, which entirely ignored 



326 . DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

the prayers of the petitioners ; the bill reported being sanctioned by a caucus of 
the majority, prevented all service pension legislation. 

The recent act of Congress will bring some relief to veterans in the asyluma 
and poor-houses of the country, and to many helpless widows, but it will reach 
no one, not even those who are now receiving disability pensions, except those 
who will take the pauper oath prescribed by the second section of the act. 
**** * * * * *** 

Many thousands who are now receiving small pensions for disabilities will 
fail to have an increase under the present act, as the proof that they are unable to 
procure a support by manual labor must accompany their applications and no one,, 
disabled or not, will be entitled to a pension under this act who has not served 
ninety days in the army. 

This act is called a Disability act, for the purpose, no doubt, of disguising it» 
real character. It is a disability act, but it would have been more appropriate to 
have called it a pauper pension act^ for the disability consists in the fact that the: 
applicant is unable to earn a support by manual labor. 

There may be a few wealthy soldiers and sailors found who are unable to earn 
a support by their manual labor, but I doubt if there could be one such found in 
a thousand applicants. 

As a rule, proof of poverty must precede the pretended generosity of our states- 
men ; but the climax of humiliation is reached when the act provides for the soldier's 
widow. She, too, is compelled to prove that she is " without any other means of 
support than her daily labor." Such proof has never been required for the pension of 
any widow by any former act of Congress. * * * Now when she is forty or sixty 
years old our generous statesmen will allow her eight dollars a month, if she can 
prove that " she cannot support herself by daily labor." 

But if her husband was killed or died before ninety days' service she is left 
without any relief. 

Strip this act of its verbiage and hyprocrisy, and it could well be called " a 
pauper pension act." 

Let the authors take the consequence, as veterans will know how to resent the 
insult. 

The second section of this bill leaves it wholly with the 
Commissioner to say whether the pensioner shall receive $6 or 
$12 per month ; and experience has shown that some Commis- 
sioners have been none too scrupulous in administering their 
trust for the benefit of a political party. 

With a strong partisan as Commissioner, his party friends 
can be given $12 and his party opponents $6 per month. Like 
partiality has been shown heretofore, and we may look to see it 
shown hereafter. A Democratic soldier under a Republican 
administration would fare as many of them have fared in the 
treatment they have heretofore received, and there would be no 
way to prove the discrimination sufficiently well to justify the 
Commissioner's impeachment. 

There were about one million men who served ninety days 
and less than one year. These will get the bulk of the money 



A PAUPER PENSION ACT. 327 

under this law, while those who served longer and fought 
through the war will fare no better. In the language of the 
Hon. S. S. Yoder of Ohio, '' It is a premium on hospital bummers 
and a discount on bravery and long and faithful service. There 
is one class of patriots who will be largely benefitted by this 
bill ; a class of men whose service never ends so long as there 
remains a fee — the patriotic claim agent." 

On the 13th of August, 1890, the Boston encampment of the 
Grand Army adopted the following : 

Resolved^ That while we are thankful for the aid given to our helpless comrades 
and widows by the present Congress, in the passage of what is called the Disability 
Pension bill, they have failed to comply with the request of the Grand Army of 
the Republic at the Twenty-second National Encampment at Columbus, Ohio, and 
reaflBrmed at the Twenty-third National Encampment at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and 
also have failed to comply with the resolutions of Grand Army posts and petitions 
representing thousands of veterans in every loyal State of the Union, asking for 
the passage of a service pension bill ; Ave therefore reaffirm and indorse the resolu- 
tions passed at the National Encampments at Columbus and Milwaukee, and the 
petitions of posts asking for the passage of a service pension hill. 

**'*** * *^f * ** 

" We demand the passage of a service pension bill." 

This is what the Eepublican party had promised, but instead 
of complying with the demand of the Grand Army, it proceeded 
%o pauperize the soldiers, as shown by the speech of the president 
of the Service Pension Association of the United States. 

A circular published over the signature of the chairman of 
1;he State committee of the Service Pension party of Pennsylvania 
concludes thus : 

We djank the wine of death, disease, and wounds on the battle-field. Let us, 
from the same canteen, drink the wine of justice at the ballot-box. 

In the face of its denunciations of the Democratic party for 
not granting a service pension, and in violation of its own 
pledges to the soldiers, the Republican party has confined its 
pension legislation to pauper laws that will humiliate every man 
and woman that gets the benefit of them, and has failed to 
appropriate the money to pay the cost of even these ; and for 
this there was not the slightest excuse in the world, for that 
party has a large majority in both branches of Congress and its 
own President in the White House, while it started into its term 
of power with a large surplus in the Treasury, which it has 
devoted to extravagant and reckless appropriations for all sorts 
of questionable schemes, totally ignoring its own promises and 
the demands of the soldiers. 

The conclusion from all this is too plain to justify mention 
of it. 



328 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



STATEMENT OF THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Treasury of the United States, Washington, D. C, September 30, 1890. 

The following statement shows the assets and liabilities of the treasury from tfie latest 
returns received from the several assistant treasurers^ mints and assay offices of the 
United States, and National hank depositaries : 



Assets. 



f 



Gold.— Coin.... 
Bullion. 



Silver.— Standard dollars 

Bullion 

Fractional silver coin. 
Trade dollar bullion. . . 



Standard dollars, act July 14, 1890. 
Silver bullion, act July 14, 1890 



United States notes. 
National bank notes. 
Fractional currency. 



Gold certificates 

Silver certiflcases 

Currency certificates 

United States treasury notes, act July 14, 1890. 

United States bonds and interest, purchased. 

Interest checks and coupons paid 

Interest on D. C. bonds paid 



Minor coin 

Deposits in National bank depositaries. 



Aggregate, 



$246,179, 
59,907. 



Oil 80 
459 38 



311,704 

4,206, 

20,563, 

5,999, 



,925 00 
,494 09 
,708 87 
,537 76 



3,790, 

4,278, 



887 00 
981 72 



12,765, 
4,620, 



290 20 
511 45 

598 96 



16,058, 

1,852, 

180. 



,780 00 
,364 00 
000 00 
500 00 



216. 

4,048. 

5. 



980 80 
384 46 
112 66 



$306,086,471 18 

342,474,665 66 

8,069,868 72 

17,386,400 61 
19,053,644 00 



4,270,477 62 

204,546 58 

30,297,111 24 



$727,843,165: 61 



Liabilities. 

Reserve for redemption of U. S. notes, acts of 

1875 and 1882 

Gold certificates, acts of March 3, 1863, and 

July 12, 1882 

Silver certificates, act of February 28, 1878 

Currency certificates, act of June 8, 1872 

United States trcasui-y notes, act July 14, 1890. . 
Public debt and interest : 

Interest due and unpaid 

Accrued interest 

Matured debt 

Interest on matured debt 

Interest on Pacific railroad bonds due and 

unpaid 

Accrued interest on Pacific railroad bonds. 
Balance of interest anticipated by depart- 
ment circulars 



Post-ofllce department account 

Disbursing officers' balances 

Undistributed assets of failed National banks. 

Currency and minor coin redemption account. 

Fractional silver coin redemption account .... 

Redemption and exchange account 

Treasurer's transfer checks and drafts out- 
standing, 

Treasurer U. S., agent for paying Interest on 
D. C. bonds 



Five per cent, fund for redemption of National 
bank notes 



Total liabilities.... 
* Available balance. 



Aggregate. 



$ 857,525 57 
3,030,259 70 
1,750,985 26 

147,958 28 

13,589 96 
969,352 68 

12,559,825 04 



4,814,262 69 

31,567,767 89 

1,366,905 28 

220 00 

2,880 00 

521,622 53 

4,371,450 60 

105,430 57 



$100,000,000 00 

174,163,519 00 

311,173,571 00 

7,170,000 00 

8,069,000 00 



19,328,996 49 



42,750,539 56 
5,396,209 00 



$668,a51,8a5 05- 
59,791,350 56; 



$727,843,185 61 



*The surplus. 



J. N. HUSTON, Treasurer U. S. 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNKRS. * 329 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 



BILLS TO MAKE FARMERS AND TAX-PAYERS PAY THE 
FREIGHT FOR OTHERS. 



Sbipping Subsidies. 

When Mr. Harrison, as a candidate for the Presidency, made 
liis speech at Indianapolis, in which he announced the discovery 
of a new law of political econonyr that, in order to get trade 
^with other nations, "we must firs* have regular and frequent 
mails, and to that end abjured his party to be bold and fear not 
" the ugly word subsidy," he gave the best and most authoritative 
intimation that the public treasury was to be thrown open to the 
plunderers in case of his election. 

It had always been supposed by those who should have 
known the truth, that ships were the instruments of commerce 
and owed their existence to trade, but Mr. Harrison discovered 
the falsity of this and his party was not slow in the adoption of 
his utterance as an axiom and to proceed upon the idea that 
ships create commerce. When Congress met, therefore, it pro- 
ceeded to grant the money that the people had paid into the 
treasury in the shape of taxes to everybody who had the hardi- 
hood to ask for it in the way of bounties and subsidies. Senator 
Frye, of Maine, ever watchful of, and solicitous for, the welfare 
of the whole people, from his vantage ground away up in the 
northeast corner of the Union, introduced two bills to enrich the 
agricultural and other interests throughout the whole country 
by taxing them to pay bounties and subsidies to the few wealthy 
individual and incorporated ship-owners along the coast of 
Maine and a small section of the Atlantic seaboard. 

The idea was that these ship-owners do not now get enough 
money from those who employ their vessels in commerce, because 
other ship-owners are willing to do the carrying trade for less, 
and that if those who do not employ the ships of these particular 
owners could be made to contribute a portion of their money out 
of their private pockets to the Government, by it to be turned 
over to the ship-owners, then shipping would be like the manu- 
facturing industries under the tariff law — that is, able to operate 
at the expense of those who have no interest in it. In other 
Tvords, if the whole people would pay the freight — and pay 
42 



330 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

enough more than freight costs noYf from other ship-owners — 
some persons somewhere would be able to conduct some foreign 
trade, and these ship-owners along the Eastern seaboard would 
get rich, notwithstanding the fact that our tariff law is intended 
to prohibit just this thing of foreign trade. The object is to pass 
one law costing the farmers and other unprotected citizens hun- 
dreds of millions of dollars annually to "check imports" and 
prevent foreign commerce, and then to try to counteract this 
outrageous statute by enacting another levying an additional 
tax to pay subsidies and bounties to ship-owners to encourage 
imports and foreign commerce ! 

That is what gamblers call playing "both ends against the 
middle," and this peculiar phrase is peculiarly applicable here 
and to this gambling transaction in which the taxpayers con- 
tribute the money that is lost by legitimate industry and won 
by those who perform no service for the contributors. 

This thing of placing our farmers and laborers between the 
upper and nether millstones and compelling them to pay for the 
force that operates both is what the Republican party calls 
statesmanship and what, in tlis particular instance, is justified 
by holding out the delusive hope that we may know that the 
stars and stripes are seen in foreign ports. 

^Displaying tlic Flag from £inpty Sliips. 

Paying the owners of ships without cargoes for displaying 
the American flag from the masts of their substantially empty 
hulks may be an occupation as patriotic as that of burning powder 
and sending up red, white and blue paper balloons on the Fourth of 
July, but it is neither as gratifying nor as amusing a method of 
keeping alive the true enthusiasm for American liberty, espec- 
ially in view of the fact that the funds are to be raised by 
compulsory contributions from the pockets of the poor. The* 
way to revive commerce, and with it its handmaid, is to adopt 
the Democratic policy of repealing our barbarous navigation 
laws and enacting a civilized system of tariff taxation. 

The Republican party has suppressed our foreign commerce 
and driven our merchant marine from the high seas with its 
spoliation tariffs and its piratical shipping policy, and now it 
seeks to stop the cry for an extension of markets by taxing the 
people to make a pretense of displaying the flag and conducting 
international trade. 

No one will for an instant doubt that if those not engaged 
in this foreign trade will contribute enough money, drawn from 
some other source, to the ship-owners to enable them to build 
ships from the raw materials, the prices of which are increased 
by our tariff laws, and to pay those who ship goods abroad 
enough to compensate them for the additional cost of producing 
their goods due to the same system of taxation, together with 
the money necessary to pay our tariff duties on the goods for 
which these domestic goods may be exchanged, it would be 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 331 

possible for the United States to establish a very considerable 
carrying trade in American ships. But until the people are 
taxed sufficiently to overcome all these disadvantages and 
obstacles placed in the way of our trade, together with those 
created by the navigation laws, subsidies will represent merely 
idle robbery. 

What the Bills Are. 

One of Senator Frye's bills says in its title that its purpose 
is to place the American merchant marine on an equality with 
that of other nations ; the other is a subsidy scheme in the guise 
of a measure to provide for an ocean mail service. In support 
of these bills Senator Frye goes back to the time of Democratic 
law and policy when our merchant marine was the second in the 
world and rapidly becoming the first, and comes down through 
the years of Republican policy, during which period that inter- 
est has steadily and rapidly declined, to the present, of which 
he says : ^' I take it,-in discussing these questions, every Senator 
here will admit that I am stating the absolute naked facts, and 
that in the foreign carrying trade the United States is practically 
dead to-day." No one dissented from that statement. The 
American merchant marine was a source of pride and profit to 
the American people, but now, after thirty years of Republican 
policy, it is 

"As a painted ship 
Upon a painted ocean," 

and we are paying annually about $150,000,000 to foreigners for 
carrying what commerce still remains to us. 

It is then pointed out that foreign nations subsidize their 
ships, and as a reason for our doing the same the false statement 
is made that England subsidizes hers, and that to that circum- 
stance she owes her supremacy in commerce, while against the 
adoption of a low tariff by the United States these same persons 
urge the fact that England is a free trade country — which is the 
true source of her supremacy. 

Various other nations do subsidize their ships, but the state- 
ment concerning the shipping for the world for the last year 
shows that the merchant marine of every country that gives 
subsidies is being rapidly driven from the seas by the merchant 
marine of England, which gives no subsidies. 

I>oes Great Britain Subsidize SCer Ships? 

As the shipping of Great Britain is the only rapidly increasing 
one of any consequence in the world, of course the subsidy 
hunters here wish to create the impression that the British Gov- 
ernment supports it. To this end Hon. John C. New, the Consul 
General at London, who was appointed by President Harrison, 
-was requested by this administration to report to the State 
Department upon this subject. 



332 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The opening sentence of his report was : 

The British Government does not grant subsidies, in the general sense of that 
term, to any steamship company, but the post-office authorities make contracts for 
the conveyance of mails to the different parts of the world with the steamship 
companies hamng steamers sailing to tliose ports. * * * No payment other than, 
for the conveyance of mails is specially made for maintaining communication: 
between Great Britain and Central and South America and the West Indies. 

David A. Wells, L.L. D., has shown just what the facts are 
in regard to the alleged subsidies. Calling attention to the fact 
that the empire of Great Britain consists of widely separated 
territory, extending around the globe and requiring constant 
communication between the mother country and the colonies for 
the proper maintenance of the government, he shows that in the 
days of sailing vessels, when we were rapidly approaching first 
place in open competition with her, Great Britain paid nearly 
twice as much for mail service as she does now and that not- 
withstanding that fact, we were beating her. 

Previous to 1860 Great Britain paid as much as $5,000,000 in a single year for 
the transportation of her mails to and from the mother country and its colonies, 
and foreign ports and dependencies. For the year ending March 31, 1889, the; 
British Postoffice Department, according to its report presented to Parliament, ex- 
pended in all, for " conveyance" by land and by water, and by all agencies, the= 
sum of £1,916,691 ; and as it is under this head that the so-called and much-talked 
of English steamship subsidies must be found, if found at all, an analysis of the 
items of such expenditure is of the first importance. And, instituting such an 
analysis, it appears that out of the above aggregate $903,634 was paid to British 
railway companies, and £637,502 ($3,100,859) to steamship lines for mail convey- 
ance; but of the latter sum, the "foreign market service" of steamships received 
£516,173 (or $2,508,590). If there was anything in the nature of subsidy in this, 
expenditure, it is clear, therefore, that the railways received the major portion; 
and that the comparatively pitiful sum of some three millions of dollars is all that 
the friends of subsidies can legitimately claim that Great Britain expended in 
1888-89 for the support and encouragement of her immense ocean mercantile marine. 

A word next in reference to certain expenditures by the British Admiralty, 
which are occasionally and somewhat mysteriously referred to as in the nature of 
important gratuities for the encouragement of British shipping. The simple facts 
in this case are as follows : The British Admiralty, independent of the Postoffice 
Department, and without reference to any conveyance of mails, has paid, in recent 
years, under the head of war expenditures, comparatively small sums on account 
of certain steamships on condition that they should he so constructed as to permit the' 
carriage of heaviy guns, and he made otherwise availahle as war cruisers, and thus modi- 
Jied he lield at the disposal of the Government at all times for purchase or hire, at tlie 
option of tJie Admiralty. The primary cost of such vessels being thus consideraoly 
increased, and their modified construction being also antagonistic to their most 
profitable employment in passenger or freight service, the British Government, of 
necessity, is obliged to make compensation for such losses. But upon what close 
calculations such compensation is rendered is made evident by the fact that, for 
the year 1888 the total expenditure for such propose was only £22,380, while for 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 333 

the year 1889 an expenditure of £39,410 was estimated. For the year 1885 the 
amount thus expended was much larger, namely, about £600,000, 

On the other hand the Postoffice Department of the United States expended 
foT the conveyance of the mails — mainly by land — in 1887-88, the large sum of 
i$31 ,456,000, or more than seven times as much as Great Britain for a like 
service; but no one pretends that this great expenditure was a subsidy paid 
for encouraging the building and use of American railway tracks, bridges, cars or 
locomotives, and yet it was a subsidy to our railroads in exactly the same sense as 
the much smaller similar expenditure of Great Britain was a subsidy to her 
shipping. 

How the British government, moreover, entirely subordinates whatever pay- 
ments it may make for its ocean marine service to the interests of the empire — its 
colonies, its foreign dependencies, and military and naval stations — rather than to 
its trade interests, is strikingly illustrated by the way in which such payments are 
distributed. Thus England's trade with Europe is very much greater than her 
trade with Asia ; but she paid to the lines of steamers running to ports in Asia in 
the year 1888-89 for the conveyance of her mails £435,800, while to the lines plying 
between England and European ports she paid during the same year but £17,700, 
and this latter payment was entirely confined to the channel steamers running be- 
tween Dover and Calais, and Dover and Ostend. The simple and truthful expla- 
nation of this, that there are English colonies and military and naval stations in 
Asia, but none in continental Europe. Again, the United States and the West 
Indies are two countries about equally separated from England. With the former 
England's trade is seventy-five times greater than with the latter; but the steamers 
performing service between England and the West Indies in the year 1888-89 were 
paid £90,550, while those carrying the mails between England and the United 
States during the same year were paid but £85,000. If any man, after a compar- 
ison of these figures, can wrest from them an interpretation that England's motive 
in paying thus extravagantly for the transport of her West India mails, was to 
build up her ocean marine, rather than maintain the integrity of her empire, and 
keep up regular and efiicient communication with her colonies, he will be entitled 
to extraordinary credit for ability to manipulate figures in such a way as to deduce 
from them any conclusion antagonistic to the truth that he may think expedient. 
Tlie precise object wliich the Government of the United States has had in view in con- 
nection with its liberal grants of money and land to tlie great transcontinental railway 
lines — namely^ to knit the widely separated portions of its dominion more closely together 
— has been aimed at by the British Government in its large contributions during 
the last forty or five-and-f orty years to its various mail steamship lines whicii have 
united the colonies as never before with the mother country. The nature of the 
service, both to the East and West Indies, has always been peculiar and exceptional, 
and still continues to be so ; and more than three-fourths of the whole cost of the 
present ocean marine service is expended upon those two routes. 

And here we find an explanation of a recent circumstance — namely, the 
reported grant by the British Government of £60,000 per annum to a steamship 
line, to run in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railroad from Vancouver 
to Hong Kong, which has been regarded as conclusive evidence that Great Britain 
builds up her ocean marine by subsidies. The Canadian Pacific, however, was 
built primarily, not fortrafic purposes, but as a political necessity to bind together 
the widely separate provinces of the Dominion of Canada; and immense contribu- 
tions of land and money were made by the Colonial Government to effect its con- 



331 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

struction. Once completed it opened a new, cheap, and expeditious route to the 
East, which England could control and use for the transportion of troops and 
munitions of war, as well as for postal service to India and Australia, in case 
European or Egyptian complications, which are always threatening, should close 
to her the Suez Canal. Her encouragement to the new line of steamers in question 
was, therefore, clearly dictated by military and not by mercantile considerations. 

Again, it has been proposed during this present year (1889) to establish a new 
transatlantic fast line between England and Canada, on the basis of a government 
bonus of half a million of dollars per annum. Such a compensation seems very 
large, and as having clearly for its object the encouragement of British shipping, 
but an examination of details showed that the proposed new line was not intended 
to be a freight-carrying line, but to carry passengers and mails primarily and 
almost exclusively ; that the bonus was to be no assistance in moving British and 
Canadian products to a market , and, finally, that large as the bonus was, it was 
wholly insufficient to support a passenger line, pure and simple. The enterprise 
in question, therefore has, at least for the present, been abandoned. 

It is not to be overlooked in this connection that certain of the British colonial 
governments do make compensation to certain ocean steamship lines independent 
of the home government ; but this is done for the purpose of obtaining greater 
facilities for mail conveyance and for immigration, and not for the purpose of de- 
veloping any shipping interest. Such compensation, for example, has been paid 
by New Zealand to steamships owned by Mr. Spreckles, an American citizen ; and 
another line of American steamers receives payment from Brazil. 

No little of confusion and misapprehension has attended the discussion of this 
subject, by reason of the different usage and signification of the term " subsidy" in 
the United States and Great Britain. In the former the terms " subsidy " and 
" Jo^rn^^ "• are used as having an equivalent meaning; and when a subsidy is pro- 
posed it is generally understood to be in the nature of a bounty for the purpose 
of helping the owners of steamships to make a living, or earn profits. In the latter 
no pajonents are made by the Government to any steamships — other than the com- 
paratively trifling Admiralty subventions above noted — except for the conveyance 
of its mails — an obligation as legitimate and as incumbent upon all nations desirous 
of maintaining correspondence with foreign countries, as are payments for the per- 
formance of similar service by railroads and other instrumentalities on land. But 
such payments in Great Britain, although spoken of as subsidies, are not bounties, 
or regarded as such by her Government or her people. 

Great Britain, furthermore, pays no more to her ships than a fair commercial 
price for the service they render ; and the fact that all contracts for such service 
are always made after public advertisemeni and public competitive tenders on the 
part of all persons, native or foreign, who may desire to participate in the service, 
excludes the possibility of there being anything in the nature of a benefaction or 
bounty, which could alone be authorized by direct and specific enactment of Parlia- 
ment. 

The statement that is also constantly made, that because the subsidies paid by 
England to English steamships enable them to carry English-manufactured com- 
modities cheaply to her dependencies and foreign nations, therefore mercantile 
competition with England on the part of the United States in like business is 
impossible, is equally destitute of foundation. 

J?i*888 Great Britaiti oicned 8Giien-twelfths of the icorld^s slvipping^ and 70 pe7'ce7it. 
of the world's steam-tonnage; but out of this immense aggregate, not 2 per cent. 2'>er- 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. o>>0 

forms any direct service for the British Government^ or receives one farthing per annum 
from its treasury in the tcay of payment for anything. And yet the advocates of 
the subsidy policy in this country would have the American people believe that it 
is the employment of this small fraction of her marine tonnage by the British 
Government for mail service, and on the compensation for which not more than 
an average of 5 per cent, profit is probably realized, that makes Great Britain mis- 
tress of the ^eas, and gives her manufacturers advantages over American com- 
petitors in dealing with foreign countries. 

Up to about 1850-51, the problem whether any ocean steamship could be navi- 
gated at a profit was a doubtful one. But in 1851 all doubt on the subject having 
been removed, 3Ir. John Inman, an English capitalist and merchant, possessing no 
more information or facilities than wore available to other competitors, started his 
line of transatlantic screw steamers, which were to carry general cargoes and emi- 
grant passengers, and be independent in every respect of the British Admiralty or 
Postofiice. And from that time to this there has been a constant succession of 
other lines put in operation which have been pre-eminently successful, and which 
have never received Government aid of any kind, — not even compensation for 
ocean postal service. And these facts, which can not be questioned or denied, also 
conclusively demonstrate the unsoundness of the assertion on the one hand, that 
the present great development and supremacy of British ocean navigation is due to 
the continued payment of subsidies by the Government ; and on the other, that 
Government aid in the way of subsidies is, and has been, necessary for. the resusci- 
tation of the American mercantile marine, unless it is at the same time assumed 
that the Americans are an inferior race, and are unable to do under equal ciccum- 
stances what the Englishman has found no difl^iculty in accomplishing. And if 
circumstances have not been equal, it is because our navigation laws and fiscal 
policy would not permit it. 

A further point of importance should also not be overlooked by those desirous 
of getting at the truth of this matter. The sailing fleet of Great Britain is the 
largest in the world, and in 1888 numbered 15,025 vessels, representing over three 
millions of tons ; but not one of these vessels is employed by the British Govern- 
ment. In general, however, they engaged in profitable ocean service, while our 
sailing vessels are rapidly decreasing in number because they are unprofitable. 
And yet no one can deny that the same opportunities of freight in the general 
ocean-carryiny trade are open to British and American sailing ships, excepting that 
the latter have the advantage of being protected in their coastwise trade, while the 
coasting trade of Great Britain is open to all nations. And this statement alone 
ought to be convincing that the British carrying trade on the ocean is not main- 
tained and made prosperous by subsidies. 

The utter %Dant of all similarity between tJie ocean service 'which private-owned 
steamships render to the British Government and tJie object for which it is proposed to 
pay subsidies to shipping in this country should not be overlooked. In one case payments 
are made for service, based on contracts awarded after public competition. In the other 
a subsidy is to be given on the bam of the mileage sailed. In the former the prime 
object proposed for attainment is the carrying of lettters ; in the other the sailing 
of the ship or the carrying of the flag. There is something very sentimental and 
captivating in the assertion that " trade follows the flag." But trade does nothing 
of the kind. It follows the dollar wherever it is to be found, and in the attain- 
ment of this object the question of the flag to those concerned in the trade is a 
matter of very little consideration. Goods seeking transportation will never wait 



336 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

long upun a dock, because the vessel moored to its side and ready and capable of 
transporting tliem carries a foreign flag. 

Finally, wben England's record in this matter is examined, it becomes apparent 
that her so-called subsidy policy has no characteristics antagonistic to the princi- 
ples that underlie and govern all correct and shrewd business transactions. She 
subsidizes ships in the same sense as the citizen subsidizes the butcher, the baker, 
the grocer, and the dry goods merchant ; that is, she avails herself of the services 
of a very small proportion of her ships and ship-owners for carrying her mails and 
pays them for it in exactly the same way as the United States pays railroad, steam- 
boat and stage owners for performing similar service. And in all her history 
Great Britain has never appropriated a dollar for the purpose of aiding in the con- 
struction and employment of a British merchant ship, and no person can point to 
a single act of Parliament that ever gave a bounty or subsidy for such purpose. 
The testimony of all British authorities runs to the same effect. Thus, in 1881, 
the late Mr. Henry Fawcett, M. P., then British postmaster-general, declared ex- 
plicitly that " a postal subsidy is simply a payment made for the conveyance, under 
certain specified conditions as to time and speed, of postal matter"; that "such 
subsidies are not granted with the object of giving to English shipping any pro- 
tection*against the competition of the shipping of foreign countries," and men- 
tioned as proof of the correctness of this assertion, " that when a contract for the 
conveyance of mails is advertised, no restriction whatever is imposed upon any 
foreign vessels competing," and that " the subsidy would be paid to foreign-owned 
and foreign-built vessels if it was considered that the best and cheapest service 
could be thus secured." 

The largest amount specifically paid by the British Government for ocean 
service is to the so-called " Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company," which 
carries the mails, Government despatches and messengers between England 
and the East, and the receipts and experiences of this company are often cited a^ 
evidence that England not only called it into existence, but has always maintained 
it by the payment of subsidies, in the American acceptation of the term. But on 
this point Mr. W. H. Lindsay, the leading authority on English shipping, speaks 
thus decisively : 

The impression, he says, that this company owed its origin to Government 
grants, and that it has been maintained by subsidies, is not supported by facts. 
Whether the company would have continued to maintain its career of prosperity 
without Government subsidies, is a problem too speculative for me to solve. Free 
from the conditions required by Government, the company would probably have 
done better for its shareholders had it been also at liberty to buifd and sail its 
ships as it pleased, despatching them on such voyages and at such rates of speed 
as paid it best ; and, in support of this opinion, I may remark that various 
otlier shipping companies, with no assistance whatever from Government, 
have yielded far larger dividends than the Peninsular and Oriental 
Company ; and, further, that private shipowners who never had a mail bag 
in their steamers have realized large fortunes. And again, commenting on 
the large payments made to this line by the Government, he says: From 
whatever cause it may have arisen, the fact is apparent that, though the 
annual gi:oss receipts of the company are enormous, its expenditure is so great 
that less balance is left for the shareholders than is usually divided among those 
undertakings of a similar character which receive no assistance from Government, 
but are free to employ their ships in whatever branch of commerce they can be 
most profitably employed. — Lindsay's Merchant Shipping. 

The late Mr. Guion, founder of the Williams & Guion line of steamers, has 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 



337 



-also placed liimself on record, that his company " never received a penny of Gov- 
ernment subsidy and felt no necessity for it." 

Within the last year the British Postoffice authorities have made a contract 
with the North German Lloyd for a regular mail service between Southamptsn and 
ISTew York, in preference to employing the Cunard and White Star lines, for the 
reason that the Government could effect a saving under the new arrangements to 
the reported extent of £25,000 per annum. Commenting on the change, Mr. John 
Burns, of the Cunard Company, in a recent communication to the London press 
made the following statements : 

" Whatever the saving made by the emplojrment of the North German Lloyd 
ships may be, the acceptance by this company of lower rates than English com- 
panies is accounted for by the following considerations : 1. They enjoy a large 
subsidy from their own Government, an advantage denied to British ships. 2. They 
are not subject to the restrictions and regulations of British law. 3. They have 
not to call and wait at Queenstown. 4. They call at Southampton on their way 
from Bremen to New York in order to compete for Britisn trafic. Whatever they 
can obtain for the carriage of the mails is therefore practically so much clear gain, 
^nd helps them in their war on British trade." 

So, according to Mr. Burns, who must be recognized as authority, the British 
•Government at the present time (whatever it may have been before), in place of 
•encouraging, is at war with British trade. 

In short, all this attributing t-he maritime prosperity of England to subsidise is 
a concealment of a truth that it is of the utmost importance for the American 
people to learn, namely, that England is first in shipping, because she is first in 
-commerce ; and she is first in commerce, because she has freed her trade and her 
ships, while the United States have shackled the one and destroyed the other." 

The following figures, furnished the State Department at Washington by 
Consul-General J. C. New, will show the amounts paid by the British postoflice for 
the carrying of the mails during a series of years past : 



Year. 


Amount. 


Year. 


Amount. 


1868-'69 


$5,454,530 
6,043,630 
6,091,345 
5,721,370 
5,605,510 
5,596,060 
4,920,770 
4,353,235 
4.255,130 
3,813,800 
3,891,205 


1879-'80 


$3,865,260 
3,592,230 
3,524,030 
3,600,800 
3,608,355 
3,542,065 
3,662,505 
3,625,915 
3,490,860 
3,184,435 


1869-'70 


1880-'81 


1870-'71 


1881 '82 


1871-'72 


1882-'83 , 


1872-'73 


1883-'84 

1884r-'85 


1873-'74 


1874r-'75 


1885-'86 


1875-'76 


1886-'87 


1876-'77 


1887 '88 


1877-^78 

1878-'78 


1888-'89 1 







Senator Frye quotes several expressions of British states- 
men concerning the amounts paid for mail service. These all 
show the different sense in which the word subsidy is used in 
England and in this country, or are made under stress of politics 
in answer to criticisms of the extravagance of the British post- 
office department and to excuse the expenditures. He even 
quotes the testimony of various statesmen and others concerning 
the guarantee of certain dividends to the ship-owners by the 
British Government as proof of subsidies — or, as the English 
would call them, bounties — when the statements themselves 
.show that the reason for this requirement on the part of the 
43 



338 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

company was that the conditions imposed by the Government 
were such as to interfere with its profits. 
For instance : 

*' The arrangement with the company was conducted on the part of the post- 
office by Mr. Scudmore ; the company submitted their books to him. After this 
examination the company expressed themselves willing to reduce their term from 
£500,000 to £400,000, provided the period was extended from six to twelve years; 
but they accompanied the abatement with the proviso that their shareholders 
should be guaranteed a dividend of 6 per cent, upon a certain stated capital ; on 
the other hand they expressed their readiness to allow the Government to share to 
the extent of one-fourth in all the profits beyond 8 per cent, which might become 
divisible. 

" After a great deal of consideration given to these further terms the Govern- 
ment adopted them with this condition, to which the company assented : That the 
guarantee of 6 per cent, should in no case render the Government liable to pay a 
greater sum than £500,000, the original amount asked. The company also agreed 
to the condition desired by the admiralty that the Government should have power 
to buy or charter their vessels in cases of expediency for the public service." 

November 29, 1867 — Secretary Hunt said : 

But the simple facts already shown by the extracts from^ 
Mr. Wells' work, that British payments are on account of mail 
and naval service, the transportation of troops, etc., and that 
only about two per cent, of the British steamships get any part 
of them, while the rest of the steamships and all the sailing 
vessels compete successfully without subsidies, dispose of the 
claim that the payments are made for commercial purposes and 
clearly establish the fact that they are intended to and do 
operate mainly as compensation for the additional cost of con- 
struction ; the additional speed and other requirements on the 
part of the Government when the contracts are entered into. 

Mr. Wells has the following to say concerning bounties and 
subsidies given by France and Germany : 

RECEKT EXPERIENCE OF FRANCE. 

The commercial marine of France, having in common with that of the United 
States and Italy, lapsed into chronic decay, the French Government recently 
determined to unreservedly adopt the system of bounties or subsidies, with a 
view of restoring this department of its industries; and accordingly by a law 
passed in January, 1881, it offered large premiums for tlie building and nav- 
igation of French vessels, both sail and steam. The matter was previously 
thoroughly discussed in the National Assembly and throughout the country; 
and there was no misconception on the part of the French public in respect to at 
least two points : First, that the proposition to offer bounties was in itself an 
acknowledgment of an inability on tlie part of France to compete with other mari- 
time nations ; and, second, that for the purpose of encouraging the French shipping 
interest, an extra tax of a considerable amount was to be imposed upon the 
country at large and upon all its other industries. And still another point 
specially worthy of note by citizens of the United States in this connection, is that 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNKRS. 339 

this neAv French law did not propose, even at the outset, or embody in its enact- 
ment, any inhibition whatever on the citizens of France from buying ships in 
foreign. countries and making them French property in case they desired to do so; 
but, on the contrary, it offers a premium for so doing, by giving one-half the sub- 
sidy granted to French-built ships to vessels of foreign construction by citizens of 
France and transferrd to the French flag. 

As already stated, the French scheme of subvention relates both to the build- 
ing and navigation of ships; but very different reasons are assigned in the 
body of the law for the legislation in question in respect to these two classes of 
industrial transactions. Thus, in respect to ship-building the act declares that 
the subsidies are granted to compensate ship-builders for the duties on imported 
materials entering into the construction of ships in France; while the subsidies 
granted for the employment of vessels are asserted to be *' for the purpose of com- 
pensating the mercantile navy for the service it renders the country in the recruit- 
ment of the military navy." 

The first effect of the law was to induce, with almost feverish haste, the forma- 
tion of a number of new and extensive steamship companies ; and the construc- 
tion of a number of new and large steamers was promptly commenced and rapidly 
pushed forward in various French ports, as well as in the shipyards of Great 
Britain, But as all these enterprises are in effect guaranteed against loss by the 
Government, and as any business they may do is so much gain, they are of neces- 
sity essentially speculative in character. And that they are so regarded by the 
capitalists that have embarked in them, is made evident by the business they pro- 
pose to do ; one line, for example, having been formed to trade between Havre 
and the southern seas, and anothe^to run on a long circuitous voyage between 
France, Quebec, Halifax, St. Thomas, and Brazil. 

The results of the first year's experience of this French system, so far as re- 
ported, have not proved satisfactory. 

Bounties were granted for the encouragement of voyages between French ports, 
the French colonies, and countries out of Europe ; but the returns for 1881 show 
a very marked decrease in the French tonnage engaged in her colonial trade as 
compared with 1880, when there were no bounties; while the French tonnage 
entries into French ports from foreign countries showed a decrease in 1881 as com- 
pared with 1880, with some marked gain in the same time in respect to clearances. 
But what is most noticeable is that the entries and clearances of foreign ton- 
nage (which of course receives no bounty) into French ports during 1881 showed 
a very large increase as compared with 1880, and was apparently in no ways 
affected by the new and discriminating privileges extended to French shipping In 
order to enable it to successfully compete for foreign business. 

RECENT EXPERIENCE OP GERMANY. 

Impressed, and apparently favorably, with the plan adopted by the French 
Government for the encouragement of its merchant shipping, the German Gov- 
ernment, under the auspices of Prince Bismarck, submitted during the past year 
(1881) an exhibit of the French law to the Reichstag, and accompanied it with the 
question, " If it was not worthy the serious consideration of that body, whether 
under the present circumstances German navigation and trade will be able to 
thrive and to compete with those of other nations aided by state subsidies ?" Thus 
far the Reichstag " has taken no action on the subject, but the proposal to meet 
French subsidies to French shipping with German subsidies to German shipping 



340 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



promptly called out most energetic protests from the merchants of not only the 
old Hanse towns of Hamburg and Bremen, but also from all the other Germaix 
seaports on the Baltic and North Seas, with, it is stated, the simple exception of 
the small and most insignificant port of Papenburg, in the Duchy of Oldenburg. 

The German Government at present contributes nothing in the way of aid to 
her commercial marine, but pays for postal freight forwarded by her steamers 
about 200,000 marks per annum. Nevertheless, the German shipping interests,, 
represented especially by a splendid fleet of merchant steamships built mainly in 
Great Britain, are most prosperous, although Germany by situation and traditions, 
can hardly be regarded as a maritime nation. Italy, with a decaying marine, is re^ 
ported as paying annually $1,500,000 as a contribution for her steamship service,. 
The annual payments of Austria for the same object are reported at $500,000,. 
while in the case of Belgium and Holland the contributions are very incon- 
siderable. 

And Capt. John Codman said in an article on this subject. 

Going further into the field of experience, we find that France, Spain, Ger- 
many, Austria, and Italy and other nations have all, within the last few years, 
spent immense sums of public funds for the development of their sea-going ton- 
nage; and still not one of them can present results which justify their expendi- 
tures. As an example, we will take France, which adopted one of the most liberal 
and undisguised bounty systems ever introduced. After six years' trial of boun- 
ties, based upon construction, tonnage and mileage, that government now finds its- 
merchant marine in a deplorable condition. It accomplished the purpose of in- 
creasing her tonnage so perfectly that the supply is now largely beyond require- 
ments, and the newly-gained tonnage is proving a burden to French taxpayers, 
instead of even an indirect profit ; and this at a time when British shipping has 
been earning unusual profits. Previous to the adoption of this system by France, 
one of the strongest arguments in its favor was that these bounties would open 
French trade with new markets. 

It signally failed in this object, as the following table, giving the value of im- 
ports and exports in millions of dollars, at the rate of 5 francs to the dollar,, 
will show: 



Year. 


Imports. 


Exports. 


Total. 


1883 


$ 1,177 
1,048 

986 
1,023 

984 
1,037 


$ 913 
914 
791 
849 

848 
850 


$ 2,089 


1884 


1,892 


1885 


1,777 


1886 


1,873 


1887 

1888 


1,833 
1,887 







These figures show that, whilst there has been a recovery since 1885, the total 
value of the foreign trade of France was less in 1888 than in 1883 by $202,000,000 — 
a falling off of over 9 J per cent. As it may be asserted that a comparison of values 
is not a fair test of the position, the rise or fall of prices of commodities affecting^ 
the figures from year to year, we give the imports and exports in thousands of tons„ 
»8 follows : 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 



341 



Then follows a table giving the tonnage from 1883 to 1888. 



Year. 


Imports. 


Exports. 


Total. 


1883 


24,770 
24.120 
22,316 
21,682 
22,462 
23,657 


6.228 
6,054 
5,834 
6,019 
6,895 
7,139 


30,998 


1884 


30,174c 
28,140 
27,651 


1885 


1886 


1887 


29,357 
30,796 


1888 





The decrease is thus not only in values, as the falling off in volume between. 
the two limits of comparison is 202,000 tons, or 6^ per cent. 

The French bounty law was passed early in 1881, and subsidies were in full 
swing by 1883. 

In 1883 the registry tonnage entering and leaving French ports was, native; 
8,546,000, and foreign 13,447,000, and in 1888, native 9,283,000 and foreign 13,609,000. 
Here, it is true, there is an increase of 737,000 native tonnage ; but as foreign also 
increased 132,000 tons, it can scarcely have been said to have been gained at the 
expense of the latter. Even if it had been it would have proved a poor return for 
an expenditure of bounties and subsidies over nearly a decade, the regium donum. 
in 1888 alone, according to Trade and Transportation^ amounting to $6,792,778. 

This clearly demonstrates that the effect of French bounties has been to give: 
more ships than were needed, without in any degree expanding the nation's com- 
merce ; in other words, many more tools and less work. 



How to Restore the Merchant Marine. 

Captain John Codman, who has served as a sea captain since 
1834, says: 

If I could formulate a bill it would embrace these conditions : 
First. The free admission of all ships of over 3,000 tons, wherever built, to 
American registry. 

Second. The admission of materials for ship-building of all classes duty free. 

^ And Captain Forbes, of Boston, known throughout the 
country as an authority on this subject, said in his testimony 
before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries: 

I sum up my position in the respectful request that you allow me and other 
American merchants the protection of the stars and stripes over such ships, 
wherever built, as we think are necessary to carry on our foreign trade successfully. 
We do not ask for charity in the way of subsidies, but simply for the protection of 
our flag in doing what by treaty or by friendship you have long allowed every 
Englishman, Dutchman, Frenchman, or Sandwich Islander to do. 

***** * * * *** 

I only ask for the protection of the flag for my property. I have been driven 
out of the China trade, for instance, by iron and steel coming in and driving out 
my wooden ships. I find the only way I can carry on my trade with China to-day, 
is by buying vessels abroad 25 per cent, cheaper than I can here. I can do it by 
covering up my ships under the British flag, but I want them under the American, 
flag. I employ a good many people. 



342 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

In verification of wliat lie says the Commercial Bulletin, of Kew York, de- 
clares — 

That half a dozen new Norwegian steamers have been chartered by a New 
York firm, to run between New York and Central American ports, without anj'- 
subsidy whatever. 

And the Emning Post made a catalogue " of the foreign built steamers running 
during May and June of this year from ports in the United States to West Indian, 
Central American, and South American ports under charter to merchants in the 
United States. We have in this way catalogued 92 such steamers, of which 45 are 
Norwegian, 43 British, 2 German, 1 Spanish, and I Kussian, all running without 
any subsidy from any government whatever. There are probably others of which 
no record exists in New York." 

Says the Bvening Post : 

Now, what is signified by the fact that ninetytwo f oreign-built steamers are 
nder charter to American merchants as above described? Certainly we have 
more capital than Norway has. New York has more than Bergen. If there is 
money to be made by owning ships as well as by hiring them, surelj'- we are not 
deterred by any lack of money from owning the steamers that we find employment 
for. There is no use mincing matters. Captain John M. Forbes has told more 
than once in words more forcible than any we could use. He says that he buys 
ships abroad because he can get them cheaper than aL home, and for no other 
reason. He sails them under a foreign flag because our navigation laws prevent 
him from sailing them under the American flag, and for no other reason. 

The Boston Journal fears that Mr. Forbes would ruin himself by paying too 
high wages to seamen if he were alloAved to sail his ships under the American flag. 
Mr. Forbes rests under no such apprehension. He is perhaps reassured by the 
fact that if he should find himself paying too high wages he could put his ships 
back again under the foreign flag and be no worse off than he is now. The Journal 
also might gather courage from that fact to let Captain Forbes try the experiment. 
Meanwhile we observe that there is no lack of shipping facilities southward, or that 
if there is any, the little kingdom of Norway is in a fair way to supply us without 
subsidy. We observe also that trade follows any flag that happens to be going in 
the right direction, and that flags generally go in the direction where there is trade. 
This may seem very curious to the Idaho branch of the American Shipping League 
and to Congressman Farquhar, but we assure them that it can be explained on 
very simple grounds. 

Here, then, is a proposition to permit Americans to buy foreign-built ships 
because they can buy them 25 or 30 per cent, cheaper than at home. Here are 
American merchants who are hiring those ships, sailing them at a profit under for- 
eign flags in the carrying trade with foreign countries. 

And yet Senator Frye and his Republican associates, sup- 
ported by the whole force of the Administration, are closing 
their eyes to all this and joining with the daughters of the horse 
leech in the cry, " Give ! give !" 

ECHO FROM ENGLAND. 

The following extract from the speech of Senator Gibson, of 
Louisiana, shows that in England the subsidy and bounty hunt- 
ers and trade restrictionists took the same position that is taken 
by them here. Speaking of free ships and free materials. Sena- 
tor Gibson said : 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 345 

But it is said ttiat that would upset our American commerce and ruin our ship- 
builders in the United States. How will it ruin our shipbuilders when we have 
none ? If we had a fleet at sea, if Ave had large shipping interests as we had once, 
then the argument against the admission of foreign ships to the protection of the 
American flag and to the American service, might have weight. But when we 
have no ships, this prohibition is merely a commendation against American 
merchants employing their capital in even the hiring, much less in buying, foreign 
ships. 

When this policy was proposed in 1849 in England, the Tory party, which was 
the party of privilege, just as the Republican party to-day in the United States 
is the party of privilege and special rights, raised a great outcry against the 
Liberal party because they proposed to do away with this prohibition, to relieve 
the English capitalists, and the English merchants and the English people from 
these restraints. I will insert, with the consent of the Senate, the remarks of 
Mr. Disraeli, who was at that time the leader of the Tory party in Great 
Britain, and of Lord Stanley, afterwards the Earl of Derby, and other leaders 
in Parliament, and where they raised the same objections against the removal 
of these discriminations, restraints and shackles from the British people, that 
are raised now by our friends who represent the Republican party in the 
Senate and in the House of Represenatives. 

Sir Robert Peel, who having been the leader of the Tory party in England, 
and whose hand was forced by the famine in Ireland, came out in favor of the 
repeal of the corn laws, and insisted upon removing all the shackles upon the com- 
merce and industries of the English people, and he cartied his bill. Mr. Disraeli 
set forth with gloomy apprehension. He said : 

Will you, by the recollections of your past prosperity, by the memory of your 
still existing power, for the sake of the most magnificent colonial empire in the 
world, now drifting away amid the breakers, for the sake of the starving mechanics 
of Birmingham and Sheffield, by all the wrongs of a betrayed agriculture, by all 
the hopes of Ireland, will you not rather, by the vote we are now coming to, arrive 
at a decision which may to-morrow smooth the careworn countenance of British 
toil, give growth and energy to national labor, and at least afford hope to the tor- 
tured industry of ^ suffering people. 

And he closed by sarcastically observing that " he would not sing " Rule 
Britannia" for fear of distressing Mr. Cobden, but he did not think the House 
would encore " Yankee Doodle." He could not share the responsibility of endanger- 
ing that empire which extended beyond the Americas and furthest Ind, which was 
foreshadowed by the genius of Blake and consecrated by the blood of Nelson — the 
empire of the seas. 

Lord Stanley, afterwards Earl Derby, in objecting to the proposal to admit a 
foreign-built ship to British registry, said : 

It was essential to keep up the number and efficiency of our private building 
yards, which would specially decrease in number were such a proposal adopted. 

Mr. Walpole, M. P., said that whatever gain might be reaped by individuals, 
the repeal of the navigation laws would imperil the safety of the country. 
Mr. Drummond, M. P., declared — 

The measure to be the last of these series invented by the Manchester school, 
the end and intention of which were to discharge all British laborers, and to 
employ foreign laborers, in lieu of them — foreign sawyers instead of English 
sawyers, foreign shipwrights instead of English shipwrights, and so on through 
the whole category of employment. 



344 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK, 



He added that — 

If there was a Satanic school of politics this was certainly it. 

The Ship-Owners' Society of London, in one of these appeals to Parliament, 
after expressing the opinion that the maritime greatness of England depended on 
the maintenance of the navigation laws, said : 

That if these laws were abolished " Rule Britannia " would forever be ex- 
punged from our national songs, the glories of Duncan and Nelson would wither 
like the aspen leaf, and fade like the Tyrain dye, and none but Yankees, Swedes, 
Danes, and Norwegians would be found in our ports. Who would there be to 
fight our battles and defend our sea-girt shores ? 

Lord Brougham also spoke of the laws that it was proposed to repeal as hav- 
ing long been considered " not only as the foundation of our glory and the bulwalk 
of strength, but the protection of our very existence as a nation." 

The English people went further. Not only did they by act of Parliament in 
1849 repeal the British navigation laws of a restrictive character, with the exception 
of those that pertained to the coasting trade, but in 1854 the British coasting trade 
was also thrown open without restriction to the participation of all nations. Here 
was a little island with less populatation, with less wealth, with no more energy, 
with no more intelligence, with no more genius for the sea than the American peo- 
ple, removing every obstacle to free competition on the part of France, Holland, 
Spain and all the neighboring states, to come into her ports free, to take away if 
they could not only her great colonial trade beyond the sea but her coasting trade, 
declaring that all that England and Englishmen asked was a fair field and a free 
fight. They asked for no bounties and no subsidies. The English sailor with the 
motto, " May the best man win," has beaten the world. Why should not the Amer- 
ican sailor meet him on the sea upon equal terms ? We have the capital, we have 
the pluck, we have the genius, the skill, the inventive faculty ; we have everything 
that our countrymen inherited from their forefathers who lived in Great Britain, 
not deteriorated, but I think I may say without bombast, somewhat improved upon, 
or at all events unimpaired. 

We Must HaTC Steady Communicatiou. 

In regard to the marvelous discovery of Mr. Harrison con- 
cerning communication with other countries, especially with 
South America, to which he made particular reference, the fol- 
lowing table, taken from the speech of Senator Vest, of Missouri, 
is instructive. It shows the number and tonnage of these ves- 
sels plying between the United States and Southern ports, and 
demonstrates that trade, and not ships, is what we need. In 
addition to these, there are many ocean tramp vessels and a 
tonnage of 85,99G belonging to the Quebec Steamship Company, 
etc., as shown in the second table. Here is the table : 





AMERICAN VESSELS. 




Line. 


Tonnage. 


Line. 


Tonnage. 


Pafiflc* Mail 


26,026 

14,927 

4,000 

!t,270 

1,75K) 

11,243 

695 


United States and Brazil 


8,400 
1,800 
1,625 


N Y and Cuba S. S Co 


New Orleans and Colombia 

Plant 


Clyde West India 


Total 


l^oval Mail 


79,775 


Alfii'"'/! n 




Oteii's Pioneer (American steam- 
(jl'S) , 









SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 



345 



FOREIGN VESSELS. 



guebec Steamship Co 
Irect Line to Trinidad 

Red Cross 

Atlantic and West India 

Hondm-as and Central America 

Booth 

New York and Jamaica 

Atlas 

Winchester & Co.: 

Porto Rico 

Brazil, etc 

Earn 




Sloman's / 

New York and Youcatan 

Oteri's Pioneer (foreign vessels) 
New York and Porto Rico 

Royal Dutch and * W.i*. *..*."."!!!!!! 

Compania Trans. Espanalo 

People's Line to Hayti 

Anchor Line, W. I. route 

Total 



5,200 
2,290 
1,400 
1,600 
623 
5,2.50 
9,000 
1,500 
6.000 



85,996 



From the above it will be seen that there are thirty lines in the trade, with an 
approximate tonnage of 165,771, nearly one-half of which is American. Three of 
the American lines, the Thurber, Ward, and Ked D companies, have nine new 
vessels on the stocks, or just completed, of about 5,000 aggregate tonnage. In 
addition there is a large " tramp " tonnage not taken into consideration in the^ 
above statement. 

Now, this does not look like a lack of tonnage. The principal appeals for sub- 
sidies have come from shipping men in the South American trade, the very direc- 
tion in which the bulk of our foreign tonnage is engaged, and their chief argument 
was that we needed transportation. Do these facts bear them out ? We have not. 
yet heard American merchants or exporters complain of insufficiency of transpor- 
tation. No doubt they would be willing to let the Government pay part or whole 
of the freight, if this is what our steamship men really want ; but if the truth were: 
correctly understood, it is more the lack of trade than the lack of transportation 
that affords reason for complaint. The one-sided character of our South Ameri- 
can trade needs little commentary. The total values of our trade with Mexico,, 
Central America, West Indies, and South America, are as follows : 





Year. 


Exports. 


Imports. 


1879 . . 


$59,870,000 
82,043,000 


$145,607,000 
199,961,000 


1889 






Increase . . 


*$22,173,000 


tS 54,354,000 





* 22 per cent. 



t30 per cent. 



Our exports are thus increasing more slowly than imports and in spite of suf- 
ficient transportation. What is the reason that we sell these countries less than 
one-half we buy ? Give us the trade, and transportation will soon be forthcoming.. 
Instead of the * trade following the flag," the truth is the flag follows trade, and 
the sooner we comprehend that fact the better. 

Here is another statement quoted by Senator Vest : 

In 1858 the tonnage of American shipping was nearly three times as great as 
the foreign. Under the Democratic low tariff, without a dollar of subsidy, our 
ships had a tonnage of 3,127,000 tons to 1,308,000, the total foreign tonnage. In 
1868 American tonnage was 2,625,000 ; foreign, 3,186,000. By 1878 the total for- 
eign tonnage was 5,500,000 greater than the American, and by 1888 we had only 
2,770,000 tons to 10,770,000 tons, foreign tonnage being four times as great as ours, 
and exceeding it by 8,000,000 tons. 
44 



346 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

This loss, wliicli for the three decades represents raoney enough to give every 
one of our 60,000,006 people a comfortable start in life if it could be prorated 
among them in cash, is a direct result of Eepublican taxation, and President Har- 
rison, with his -" ugly word ' subsidy,' " has no other means than more taxatian to 
offer as his plan of retrieving it. He advises us to tax ourselves more heavily to 
get back what we have lost by heavy taxation. 

An examination of our trade with the countries of South and Central America 
shows the only means through which we can re-establish our ocean traffic. 

"We have no trade with those countries in articles in which Republican taxes 
are levied. Brazil sells us $52,000,000 worth of merchandise a year. All of this 
except less than $6,000,000 is in untaxed articles. From the Central American 
states we get only $441,000 worth of merchandise over our tariff taxes. The tariff 
allows us to buy but $12,000 worth of taxed articles from Venezuela. Our total 
trade with the most prominent South and Central American countries in all articles 
of import taxed by our tariff for 1887 was as follows : 

Brazil '. $5,586,708 

Central America 441,000 

Venezuela 12,786 

United States of Colombia 16,594 

Argentine Republic 752,256 

Chili . . 228,897 

And this in regard to Mexico : 

In the year 1884 railroad communication between the United States and Mexico 
was opened. According to the theory we have quoted, there should have been a 
marked increase in our exports; a most regular, and frequent line of transportation 
having been formed, our shipments to Mexico should have gained in value — but 
what d6 the statistics show ? Our exports to Mexico were (before the railroad 
was in operation): 

In 1881 $ 9,200,000 

1882 ■ 13,320,000 

1883 14,370,000 

After the railroad was in operation : 

In 1884 $11,090,000 

1885 7,370,000 

1886 6,860,000 

1887 7,270,000 

1888 9,240,000 

It is as reasonable to suppose that '' trade follows the flag " 
when the flag is on the cow-catcher of a locomotive as when 
it is run up on a steamship. 

Our ^Experience with Subsidies and Bounties. 

The subsidy beggars fill the air with prophecies of the 
splendid commercial triumphs that the people are to see if they 
only consent to pay the freight. All these prophecies are but 
repetitions of what has been told over and over again whenever 
jobbery was on foot. 

Forty years ago Daniel Webster said in the Senate of the 
United States : 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 347 

" If anything sliould strike us with astonishment, it is that the navigation of 
the United States should he ahle to sustain itself. Without any Government pro- 
tection whatever it goes ahroad to challenge competition with the whole W' orld ; 
and in spite of all obstacles it has yet been able to maintain 800,000 tons in the 
employment of foreign trade. How, sir, do ship-owners and navigators accom- 
plish this ? How is it that they are able to meet, and in some measure to over- 
come universal competition ? It is not, sir, by protection and bounties, but by un- 
wearied exertion, by extreme economy, by unshaken perseverence, that manly and 
resolute spirit which relies on itself to protect itself. These causes alone enable 
American ships still to keep their element and show the flag of their country in 
distant seas. But when we consider that the articles entering into the composition 
of a ship, with the exception of wood, are dearer here than in other countries, we 
can not but be utterly surprised that the shipping interest has been able to sustain 
itself at all. 

But after the introduction of the Republican policy, *^ un- 
wearied exertion," '* extreme economy," '^unshaken persever- 
ance, that manly and resolute spirit which relies upon itself to 
protect itself," availed nothing against the combined forces of 
the Government concentrated in its statutes, and the people were 
called upon in 1864 to pay the expenses of defeating the purpose 
of their own laws. In that year a law was passed granting a 
subsidy of not to exceed §250,000 per year for ten years to estab- 
lish a monthly mail to Brazil. The success of this act brought 
other subsidy hunters to the door of Congress, and in 1865 an 
act was passed granting a subsidy of not exceeding $500,000 per 
year for ten years to any line contracting to carry monthly 
mails, by the way of the Sandwich Islands, to China and Japan. 

There was but one line in the country having such vessels 
as the act required, as was known when the act was passed, and 
that was the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. It got the bid 
for the full amount allowed by law. Mr. Cole, the author of the 
bill, said when it was under consideration : 

It is as certain as demonstration can make any fact, that the expenditure will 
be returned many-fold in duties on increased importations, and that, too, from the 
very start. And then the trade will increase from year to year, almost with 
arithmetical progression, until not only our expanding Republic, but the whole 
world will be supplied through American merchants with the products of the 
land of Confucius. 

The first thing the company did was to apply to Congress to 
be relieved from its contract to touch at the Islands. Its appli- 
cation succeeded on condition that it would run a line from 
Shanghai to Hong Kong. 

Congress then appropriated $75,000 to get a line to the Sand- 
wich Islands, which went to the California, Oregon and Mexico 
line. 

Various changes of the subsidy laws were asked for and 
Fome were made in the interests of the grabbers. 



348 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The Pacific Mail subsidy was, by the act of June 1, 1872, 
increased to $1,000,000, and the subsequent history is here given 
from the pen of Capt. John Codman in his '^History of 
Subsidies :" 

But the company was not ready to begin the semi-monthly service on October 
1, 1873, as required by the law granting the additional subsidy. The report of the 
Postmaster-General for 1873 tells the reason : 

*' The company has, however, failed to comply with its contract, because, as is 
alleged, of unexpected difficulties which retarded the building of the new steam- 
ships now being constructed for this service. In May, 1872, this company began an 
■additional monthly service between San Francisco, China and Japan, which it has 
maintained regularly with three exceptions up to the present. For this service 
the sea postage only has been granted, since the vessels used are of less 
tonnage than the law requires. The company asked to be allowed to continue the 
present service till it can finish its larger vessels." 

In 1874, when the company was ready to begin its service, the Attorney- 
General declared that the contract was still in force. But in the meantime the 
scandal came to light. Investigation showed that Allen Stockwell, the president 
of the company, with the consent of the directors, spent through its agent, Irwin, 
nearly $1,000,000 to secure the subsidy. J. G. Schumaker, a member of the House 
of Bepresentatives, was found to have received $300,000 which he could not 
account for through a failure of memory. King, the postmaster of the House, and 
Bepresentative-elect, fled to Canada. Other members of Congress were thought 
to be implicated, but nothing was proven against them. This great scandal, sur- 
passed only by the greater one of the " Credit Mobilier," put an end to further sub- 
sidy legislation. What were the results obtained by these systems of subsidies ? 
Did our trade increase by arithmetical progression, and did the subsidy give us 
the carrying trade of the world on the products of China and Japan, as was so 
'Confidently predicted by the originators of the scheme ? 

In September, 1873, the subsidy to the " California, Oregon, and Mexico Line " 
between San Francisco and Honolulu, Sandwich Islands, ceased, after many inter- 
ruptions and delays in the service, by voluntary action of the company in with- 
drawing their steamers. It had been in existence since 1867, and cost our Govern- 
ment the sum of $425,000. In 1867, the total exports from the United States to the 
Hawaiian Islands were $864,492; the imports in that year into the United States 
from these islands were $1,070,252. In 1873, the last year in which these "subsi- 
dized" steamers ran, the value of the total exports from the United States to the 
Hawaiian Islands was $674,191 ; the total value of the imports into the United 
States, of Hawaiian product, was $1,275,061 — a loss of $200,000 on exports and a 
gain of $200,000 on imports. Net result, nil. 

On September 30, 1875, the Brazil subsidy expired by limitation. This service, 
Avhich began in 1866, cost the United States Government the sum of $1,500,000. 
The exports from the United States to the Brazils in 1866 were $5,691,659; the 
amount of exports in the year 1875 was $7,742,359 ; the value of the imports into 
the United States from the Brazils was, in 1866, $16,816,803; the value of the im- 
ports from the Brazils in 1875 was $42,027,863, of which by far the greater amount 
consisted of free goods. 

On December 30, 1876, the first contract with the Pacific Mail Steamship Com- 
pany expired by limitation. Tlxe second contract never went into effect. For the 



SUBSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS. 



349 



Pacific mail service during the period of ten years covered by the contract the sum 
of $4,583,333.33 was paid, with what results appears from the following table : 

Value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United States from 
and to Gldna. 



Year ended June 30 — 


Exports. 


Imports. 


1867 


$3,578,808 
4,739,892 


$12,112,440 
13,947,633 


1876 





Value of Tnerchandise imported into and exported from the United States from and to 

Japan. 



Year ended June 30 — 


Exports. 


Imports. 


1867 


$ 712,034 
1,099,696 


$ 3,618,283 
15,470,047 


1876 







The export trade to China, Japan, Brazil, and Hawaiian Islands showed no 
material increase during the subsidy period. Our manufacturers and producers 
were not benefited by this outlay. The import trade from Japan and Brazil de- 
Teloped during the operation of the subsidy to a very marked extent, but this was 
due to the removal of the duty from rubber in 1871 and from tea and coffee in 1872, 
and to the free importation of raw silk. Of the value of imports from Japan in 
1876 $10,426,531 represented tea and $3,787,417 raw silk. The total imports from 
Brazil in 1875 included coffee of the value of $35,099,274 and rubber valued at 
^2,519,437. 

Hon. J. G. Cannon, Republican of Illinois, put the whole 
Mstory in a nutshell, thus : 

Commencing in the year 1847 down to the present time (1879), act after act has 
iDcen passed for a similar purpose (postal subsidies). I hold in my hand the official 
statements of the Secretary of the Navy and the Postmaster-General, which show 
payments of subsidies to the amount, in round numbers, of $14,500,000 to steam- 
ship lines during the period from the year 1848 to 1858. I hold in my hand a 
statement that shows subsidies to the amount of $7,000,000, in round numbers, 
since that time, making over $21,000,000 that have been paid out of the Treasury 
for the purpose of establishing steamships lines — $7,000,000 would buy all the 
steamships engaged in commerce that sail under the American flag on every ocean 
in the world — and more than that ; the subsidizing of these steamship lines, from 
the Collins Line in 1852 up to the present time, has bankrupted every prominent 
man that has favored it. 

Cost of the BiUs. 

What these bills will cost no one can tell. The merchant 
marine bill is estimated by its friends to entail an expense of 
from three to six millions the first year ; but if it accomplishes 
its purpose and gives us a merchant fleet equal to that of Eng- 



350 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

land it will cost not less than $40,000,000 annually before it 
expires. The ocean mail subsidy bill authorizes the Postmaster 
General to contract with the owners of vessels to carry the for- 
eign mails for a term of not less than five years or more than 
ten years at rates varying from one dollar to six dollars per mile. 
This bill will cost whatever Cheap John Wanamaker wants it 
to cost, arid as he is a resident of that particular portion of the 
country that is interested in ships and that furnishes campaign 
funds for the Republican party, there is no reason to suppose 
that he will not be very liberal with the ship-owners. 

It is safe to say that if both bills accomplish their purposes 
it will be a long time before the Treasury is again burdened with 
a surplus. 

While the farmers are bending their energies to devise some 
way to meet the cost of transporting their grain to market over 
the railroads. Congress is devising methods of compelling them 
and other disinterested persons to pay the freight on the ocean 
for persons now engaged or hereafter to engage in international 
commerce. 

These bills are pending on favorable reports in the House, 
and will come up for consideration at the next session. They 
have passed the Republican Senate. 



REPUBLICAN FAVORITISM FOR NATIONAL BANKS. 



351 



REPUBLICAN FAVORITISM FOR NATIONAL BANKS. 



AN ACT TO CREATE AND DONATE $15,000,000 TO 

THESE PETS. 



Increasing Circulation to Par Value of Bonds I>eposi te 

Mr. Dorset, Republican, Nebraska, introduced in this Con- 
gress the following bill : 

A Substitute for bill No. 537, to provide for the issue of circulating notes to 
national banking associations. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled^ That upon any deposit already or hereafter made 
of any United States bonds bearing interest in the manner required by law, any 
national banking association making the same shall be entitled to receive from 
the Comptroller of the Currency circulating notes of different denominations, in 
blank, registered and countersigned as provided by law, not exceeding in the 
whole amount the par value of the bonds deposited : Provided^ That at no time 
shall the total amount of such notes issued to any such association exceed the 
amount at such time actually paid in of its capital stock. And that all laws and 
parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, and the san are 
hereby, repealed. 

January 29 an attempt was made to push the bill through 
without discussion. Mr. Bland objected to the consideration of 
the bill and the ayes and noes were taken, which resulted in the 
bill's being then taken up for one hour's discussion. The vote 
on the question of consideration stood thus : 

YEAS— 144. 



Adams, 

Andrew, 

Arnold, 

Atkinson, 

Banks, 

Bayne, 

Beckwlth, 

Belden, 

Belknap, 

Bergen, 

Bliss. 

Boothman, 

Boutelle, 

Bowden, 

Brewer, 



Cutcheon, 

Dalzell, 

Darlington, 

De Lano, 

Dibble, 

Dingley, 

Dolliver, 

Dorsey, 

Dunnell, 

Dunphy, 

Evans, 

Farquhar, 

Flick, 

Flood, 

Flower 



Lansing, 


Scull, 


Laws, 


Sherman, 


Lehlbach, 


Simonds, 


Lodge, 


Smith, 


Maish, 


Smyser, 


Mason, 


Snider, 


McCarthy, 


Spinola, 


McComas, 


Spooner, 


McCord, 


Springer, 


McKinley, 


Stahlnecker, 


Miles, 


Stephenson, 


Milliken, 


Stewart, Vt. 


Moffit, 


Stivers, 


Moore, N. H. 


Stockbridge, 


Morey, 


Struble, 



352 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Brosius, 


Gear, 


Morse. 


Sweney, 


Brower, 


Geissenhainer, Mutchler, 


Taylor «in. 


Browne, T. M. 


Gest, 


Niedringhaus, 


Taylor, Tenn.. 


Burrows, 


Gifford, 


Nute, 


Taylor, E. B. 


Butterworth, 


Hall, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Taylor, J. D. 


Caldwell, 


Hansbrough 


[, Osborne, 


Thomas, 


Candler, Mass. 


Harraer, 


Owens, Ohio. 


Thompson, 


Cannon, 


Hayes, 


Payne, 


Townsend, Pa.. 


Carter, 


Haynes, 


Perkins, 


Tracey, 


Cheatham, 


Henderson, 


111. Pickler, 


Turner, N. Y. 


Clark, Wis. 


Henderson, : 


Iowa. Pugsley, 


"Vandever, 


Cogswell, 


Hill, 


Quackenbush, 
Quinn, 


"Van Schaick, 


Coleman, 


Hitt, 


"^Valker, Mass. 


Comstocfe, 


Hopkins, 


Kaines, 


^Wallace, Mass. 


Conger, 


Houk, 


Kandall, Mass. 


Wallace, N. Y. 


Connell, 


Kennedy, 


Kay, 


^Vheeler, Mich. 


Cooper, Ohio. 


Kerr, Iowa. 


Reed, Iowa. 


^Villiams, Ohio.. 


Covert, 


Kinsey, 


Russell, 


IVilson, Ky. 


Cra'?< 


Knapp, 


Sanford, 


Wilson, Wash. 


Culbertson, Pa. 


Lacey, 


Sawyer 


Wright, 
Yardley. 


Cummlngs, 


La Toilette, 


Scranton, 






NAYS-110. 




Abbott, 


Cowles, . 


Lester, Ga. 


Robertson, 


Alderson, 


Crisp, 


Lester, Va. 


Rogers, 


Allen, Miss. 


Davidson, 


Lewis, 


Rowland, 


Anderson, Kans. 


Dockery, 


Mansur, 


Sayers, 


Anderson, Miss. 


Edmunds, 


Martin, Tex. 


Seney, 


Barnes, 


Elliott, 


McAdoo, 


Skinner, 


Bartine, 


Ellis, 


McClammy, 


Stewart, Ga. 


Barwig, 


Enloe, 


McClellan, 


Stewart, Tex. 


Blanchard, 


Fithian, 


McCreary, 


Stockdale, 


Bland, 


Forman, 


McMillin, 


Stone, Ky. 


Blount, 


Fowler, 


McRae, 


Stone, Mc 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Fuuston, 


Montgomery, 


Stump, 


Breckinridge, Ky. 


Gibson, 


Moore, Tex. 


Tarsney, 


Brickner, 


Goodnight, 


Morgan, 


Tillman, 


Brookshire, 


Grimes, 


Norton, 


Townsend, Colo. 


Bi-unner, 


Hare, 


Gates, 


Turner, Ga. 


Buchanan, Va. 


Haugen, 


O'Neill, Mass. 


Venable, 


Bynum, 


Heard, 


Outhwaite, 


Wade, 


Candler, Ga. 


Herbert, 


Owen, Ind. 


Walker, Mo. 


Carlton, 


Holman, 


Parrett, 


Washington, 


Caruth, 


Hooker, 


Paynter, 


Wheeler, Ala. 


Cate, 


Jackson, 


Payson, 


Whiting, 


Catchings, 


Kelley, 


Peel, 


Wike, 


Chipman, 


Kilgore, 


Pendleton, 


Williams, 111. 


Clements, 


Lane, 


Penington, 


Wilson, W. Va. 


Clunie, 


Lanham, 


Perry, 


Wise, 


Compton, 


Lawler, 


Peters, 




Cooper, Ind. 


Lee, 


Pierce, 




Yeas - 


_ 


Democrats, 18 ; 


Republicans, 125 


Nays - 


- 


Democrats, 103 ; 


Republicans, 9 



Under the present law national banks are allowed to issue 
circulation up to 90 per cent, of the par valine of Government 
bonds held by them. This bill is to allow them to increase their 
circulation to the full par value of the bonds. 

Under existing law these banks are the owners of $145,000,- 
000 of bonds, and their circulation, based on these bonds, is 
$128,000,000. Bonds are far above par, due in a large measure 
to the demand upon the part of banks for these securites as a 
basis of circulation, and the immediate and intended effect of 
this bill is to increase the value of the assets of the banks. 

Upon the passage of the bill the banks could, without the- 
purchase of another bond, issue $15,000,000 more of notes. That 
is to say, the bill is a Republican proposition to make the banks 
a present of $15,000,000, to be loaned out to borrowers at any^ 
rate of interest that necessity may compel the borrowers to pay.. 



REPUBIICAN FAVORITISM FOR NATIONAI. BANKS. 353 

The further and necessary effect is^ of course, to increase 
to the extent of the increase of circulation the power of the 
banks to expand and contract the currency. 

This is another instance of Republican friendship toward 
the banks and a corresponding act of unfriendliness toward 
silver. 

This bill has not been finally voted upon in the House, but 
it and several others containing like propositions are still pending 
there, while in the Senate John Sherman has another on the 
calendar awaiting the coming of the second session of this 
Congress. 

The following Republican expressions, made during tlie 
hour's debate on this bill, are sufficiently indicative of the pur- 
pose of the Republican party to enable the people to judge as 
to the probable result should that party be retained in power. 

Mr. DoRSEY, of Nebraska : 

Now, if the House passes this hill it will be an encouragement for tlie national 
banks to continue to hold the bonds that they are holding to-day at a positive loss, 
and it will give them cause to hope that this Congress will pass such a measure 
as will perpetuate the national banking system of the country. I know it was 
popular some years ago, especially in the West, to cry out against national banks, 
but I am happy to say that day has passed. 

Mr. Conger, of Iowa, chairman of Coinage, Weights and 
Measures : 

Why, gentlemen, I am in favor of any measure that will do any public good in 
this country, even if it should make a few men rich. 

Suppose the national banks do receive some benefit from this proposition? 
The national banking system, in my judgment, and in that of the civilized people 
of this world, is the best that history has ever known. This will tend in some 
measure to perpetuate that system ; but, gentlemen, I know you do not like the 
national banking system; you never did like it; I do not suppose you ever will. 
It was a Republican measure ; and it is the highest compliment that has ever been 
paid to the history of the Republican government of this country. 

So far the Democrats haA^e, with the assistance of a very 
few Republicans, been able to prevent the passage of any of 
these bills, but the Republican who was most in sympathy with 
them has not been renomina^ted, and should they be in the mi- 
nority in the coming election, the bill will certainly pass. 

A proposition of like nature was made in the Fiftieth Con- 
gress, but the Democratic majority ignored it entirely, and 
it was never even considered. 



45 



354 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



THE VANISHING SURPLUS. 



INCREASED TAXATION-REPUBLICAN EXTRAVAGANCE- 
FROM SURPLUS TO DEFICIT. 



Turn the Rascals Out. 



The history of Republican power, from its beginning to the present day, is a his- 
tory of outrageous taxation and enormous expenditures. For over than thirty years 
that party has had a material influence in every measure of taxation and appropria- 
tion that has passed through Congress. The Demoratic party has not within that 
time had absolute control of the instruments of taxation or been able to embody in 
the appropriation bills its ideas of proper expenditures, and without notable, if 
indeed with any exception, has that Republican influence failed to operate to the 
increase of taxation and the enlargement of appropriations. 

Even when the Democrats have had control of one House, or of one House and 
the Presidency, the Republican branch of Congress has added to the appropriations, 
and the Democrats, in order to obtain the absolutely necessary funds for the expenses 
of the Government, have been compelled to yield something to the Republican party's 
penchant for extravagance. It is a thing so rare as to escape attention, for an 
appropriation bill to return from the Republican branch of Congress carrying 
expenditures as small as those it carried from the Democratic branch. New offices 
are created, existing salaries increased, new items inserted and those that are 
already there are enlarged, until the bills place enormous burdens on the people 
and make the Government a mere machine for collecting taxes from the whole 
people and paying out the proceeds to a small portion of the people. 

The Forty-sixth Congress was Democratic in the lower House, where appro- 
priation bills originate ; the Forty-seventh was Republican in both branches, while 
the Forty-eighth was Democratic in the House. The second named appropriated 
$131,631,553.20 more than the first and $210,475,760.79 more than the third named 
Congress. 

In the Forty-ninth Congress the Democratic House passed bills appropriating 
$475,092,609, which came out of the Republican Senate carrying $516,518,843.83; 
and in the last, or Fiftieth, Congress the bills passed the Democratic House carry- 
ing $523,129,925.12, and the Senate increased the amount to $552,635,012.05. 

When the Democratic party went out of power in 1860, the revenues and dis- 
h'-. emeuts of the Treasury almost balanced, and the total expenditure of the 



THE VANISHING SUKPI.US. 



365 



Government was only $00,056,754. After thirty years of Republican legislation 
and administration — for during all the time that the Democrats have ever had 
power in any part of the Government within the last thirty years, they have been 
compelled to operate under Republican laws — the country has become accustomed 
to the sight of an annual surplus arising from extortionate taxation, notwithstand- 
ing the reckless and extravagant appropriations due to the Republican control of 
at least one branch of Congress. The country knows how that surplus accum- 
tilated. It will now have an opportunity to study the accumulation of a deficit. 

The Republican Secretary of the Treasury estimates the income of the Govern- 
ment from all sources for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1891, disregarding any 
possible increase or decrease from the new tariff bill, at $450,414,337.34. 

During the first session of the present Congress, down to September 1, there 
"was imposed a charge upon the Treasury of $461,844,779.89, an excess over the rev- 
enue for the current year of $11,430,442.55. 

This table shows the appropriations in detail, as compared to the appropria- 
tions made by the last Congress : 



Flsrt session 
Fiftieth 
Congress. 



Second session 

Fiftieth 

Congress. 



First session 
Fifty-flrst 
Congress. 



Agricultural 

Army 

Diplomatic and consular 

District of Columbia 

Fortifications 

Indian 

Legislative, executive, and judicial 

Military Academy 

Naval 

Pension 

Postofflce 

River and harbor 

Sundry civil 

Deficiencies 

Total 

Miscellaneous 

Sum total of regular annual and mis- 
cellaneous appropriations 

Permanent, specific, and indefinite ap- 
propriatious (estimated 

Grand Total 

Total receipts (estimated), including 
postal revenues , 



$1,716,010 00 

24,471,300 00 

1,428.465 00 

5,046,410 32 

3,972,000 00 

Z)8.263,700 79 

20,758,178 07 

315,043 81 

19,942,835 35 

/&5,258,700 00 

60,860,233 74 

22,397,616 90 

26,320.804 84 

7cl6,063,383 26 



$1,669,770 00 
24,316,615 73 
1,980,025 00 
5,682,409 91 
1,233,594 00 
c8,077,453 39 
20,843,615 81 
d 902,766 69 
21,692,510 27 
fir89,758,700 00 
66,605,344 28 



25,297,341 65 
18,330,518 30 



296,814,682 08 
nl0,170,862 55 



276,390,665 03 
010,255,795 20 



306,985,544 63 
gll5,640,798 90 



286,646,460 32 
gl08,691,055 95 



422,626,343 53 



395,337,516 27 



450,414,337 34 



$1,799,100 00 

24,206,471 79 

1,710,815 00 

5,769,444 15 

04,233,935 00 

7,263,116 02 

21,030,752 75 

435,296 11 

623,136,035 63 

?l98,457,461 00 

72,226,698 99 

124,981,295 00 

j29,738,282 22 

m38,511,541 17 



353,499,244 73 
p5,500,000 00 



358,999,244 73 
Q]01,628,453 00 



460.627,697 73 



a The act making this appropriation authorizes contracts for heavy guns to the extern^ 
•f $3,775,000, to meet which no appropriation is made. 

b Includes $2,858,798.62 for payment of a judgment against the United States in favor 
of the Choctaw Indians. 

c Includes $1,912,942.02 for payment to the Seminole Indians for ladds ; also $361,000 to 
Pottawatomie Indians on an award. 

d Includes $490,000 with which to erect a fire-proof building at the Military Academy. 

e The act carrying this appropriation authorizes the construction of six war vessels 
which are to cost, exclusive of armament and armor, $15,225,000. The estimated cost of 
such armament and of the armor is $9,000,000, making the total cost of the vessels when 
completed ^24,225,000 toward which an undefined portion of $5,475,000 is appropriated. 

/ Includes $3,500,000 pension deficiency for 1888, appropriated by special act. 

g Includes $8,000,000 pension deficiency for 1889, appropriated in the general deficiency 

n This is in strict pursuance of estimates fiu-nished by the Commissioner of Pensions 
and based upon laws existing prior to March 4, 1889. It is $8,479,394.07 less than what was 
expended for pensions dm*ing the last fiscal year, and is admitted to be insufficient to 
pay the pensions granted under such laws during the present fiscal year and also u^ lor 



356 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

the acts of March 4 and June 27, 1890, which latter acts, as stated by the chahTnan of the 
Committee on Invalid f^ensions on the floor of the House, will themselves and indepen- 
dent of other laws necessitate an expenditure of $36,425,000 for the present fiscal year. 
To meet this increased expenditure there is no appropriation. 

i This act also authorizes contracts for the improvement of certain water-ways and 
harbors to the extent of $14,933,979, and appropriates toward them only $2,0(W,000. 

j This does not include an expenditure of $1,044,000, as estimated by the Treasury De- 
partment, which is authorized in certain concealed and indefinite items of appropriation 
in the sundry civil act, nor does it include $173,083.16 reappropriated in the same act. 

k This is the aggregate of the deficiencies passed during the first session of the Fiftieth 
Congress exclusive of $3,500,000 for pensions. It includes $3,137,617.09 deficiencies for ^887 
and prior years, the bill for which failed at the second session of the Forty-ninth Con- 
gress, and also $937,177.40 paid to the State of Texas. 

I Includes $1,185,348.33 deficiencies in the Navy Department for 1885 and prior years, 
and was made to enable the Department to balance accounts without creating a new 
expenditure. It is the aggregate of deficiencies passed during the second session of the 
Fiftieth Congress exclusive of $8,000,000 for pensions. 

m This includes the general deficiency bill which, when It becomes a law, is estimated 
to carry $6,500 000. As the bill now stands, having once p€isaed both Houses, it carries 
$7,875,491. 

n Includes the following : Public buildings, $4,797,000; establishing quarantine stations, 
$543,500 ; procuring the division of the Sioux reservation, $1,018,000. 

Includes the following : Milwaukee i ublic building, $13,000 ; Omaha public building, 
$600,000: payment to the Creek Indians for land, $2,280,857.10; expense of the eleventh 
census, $1,000,000 ; to procure the division of the Sioux reservation, $3,153,300. 

p Of this $480,180.53 is estimated. 

q This is the amount submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury as necessary under 
permanent, specific, and indefinite appropriations. The amount actually expended may 
be greater or less than the estimate, as, for instance, of the estimate to the first session. 
Fiftieth Congress, only $101,638,513.74 L'was expended during the fiscal year for which it 
was estimated. 

That table shows only the amount appropriated upon the face of the bills. In 
the sundry civil bill there are concealed and indefinite items amounting, according 
to the estimate of the Treasury Department, to $1,044,000, and also amounts re- 
appropriated by the same act amounting to $173,083.16, together amounting to 
$1,217,083.16, which must he added to the amount shown in the table, bringing the 
grand total of appropriations to $461,844,779.89. 

deficiencies. 

To find the actual deficit, the difference between the estimated revenues and 
the expenditures for the next ensuing fiscal year, it will be necessary to substract 
from the total appropriations the amount that is appropriated to meet the deficien- 
cies accrued by reason of the inadequacy of the appropriations made by the last 
Congress to pay the expenses of the year for which they were made ; and to add 
to the remainder all deficiencies to accrue by reason of the inadequacy of the 
amount appropriated by this Congress to pay the expenses for the year for which 
they are made. 

The deficiency in last years's appropriations was $38,511,541.17, of which a 
part has been actually paid out and the rest of which must be paid out hereafter, by 
reason of which it is necessary to substract the whole amount. 

But against the total revenue must be charged $8,479,394.07, being the difference 
between the amount actually paid out for pensions in 1889 and the appropriation 
for 1890 ; $36,435,000, the amount estimated by Mr. Morrill, chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Invalid Pensions, by which the payments on account of pensions under 
the acts of March 4 and June 37, 1890, w ill exceed the amount appropriated for 
that purpose during the coming fiscal year ; $675,000 deficiency estimated by the 
Department of Justice to accrue in that department ; $487,000 deficiency to accrue 
in the printing office. This omits many deficiencies sure to accrue in other depart- 
ments of the Government, but about which no satisfactory estimates can now be 
made. 



THK VANISHING SURPIyUS. 357 



We have, then 



Total appropriations $461,844,779.89 

Deduct deficiencies accrued 38,511,541.17 

Leaving for current expenses $423,383,238.72 

Add deficiencies to accrue .' 46,066,394.07 

Actual expenses for ensuing year $469,390,632.79 

Deduct total revenue 450,414,337.34 

Excess of expenditures over revenues for ensuing year $ 18,985,295.45 

This does not take into account the large amounts authorized to be spent in 
other ways, on contracts authorized by this Congress to be made, public buildings 
not wholly appropriated for, etc., most of which items are shown in the foot notes 
to the table given ; and it takes into account, as was said in the beginning, no re- 
duction in the revenue by the operation of the McKinley tariff bill to " check im- 
ports," which its friends claim will make a reduction of over $70,000,000 per year 
in the government's receipts. 

If that bill, making that reduction in the revenue had gone into effect July 1, 
1890, the deficiency in the revenue would have been nearly $90,000,000 ; and if the 
subsidy and election bills had passed at this session, and become charges on this 
year's receipts, the result could only have been calculated by an astronomer, ac- 
customed to large figures. 



358 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



U 


fa 

S -«" 

v> 

i? 



rS 



•SQIJBIBg 



saoHJO 



•seiJBi^S 



'paj-Bajo 



ass 



8 8 
§ I 



•sep'BiBS 



saoQjo 



•gau'Bi'Bs 



•p8!jBaao 



•seLj-wi-BS 



•p9!^!»lUIO 
S80HJ0 



•SeLTBIBS 



•pa^Bajo 



> 
O, 

(D tn 

O 0) 



aj .MO 






CO O 

^ a 



O o 
M 55 S w 



20 

mX2 



03 ^3 

eo O 

H 



03 O MOfe mO(JhXOP»h o 
» » » H 



OHO 



THE VANISHING SURPLUS. 



359 



3=* 



■2 ^ 



88 8 

« eo 









II 



a . 

Co (^ 

OQ 



8 8 
g 8 



88 



a 



S8888 

S88SS 

S5a6t-0^ 



88 



888 



88 



88S8888888888 



;s: 



!8S 






S , as 03 as t^ sj^ 
+a « 08 ® ©JS a> o 






-si 



©oaog 
® ■ ^ 5 c 



0) t, O) o 

O) 03 K X 
03 43 08 O 

0c«0S 

W fc 50 15 

o o ©''3 



_ 08 02 
® 73 ® 

>o8 2; 



7^ CO O aa 

O 03 ® ® 
O ^® 

O S « ^s 



^ 2 



.2 fl 



P o fe 

it! 

03 '*^ bi3 
»H 03 ;; 05 



flo3(i)ad 



Up. 

OJOJS^^' 

■^ » !:o3a 
o "2 



360 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The foregoing tables, except the one showing the difference between the reve- 
nue and the expenditures, are from the speech of Hon. Joseph D, Sayers, of Texas, 
and this whole statement is made up from that speech and the speech of Hon. A. 
M. Dockery, of Missouri. 

The discrepancy between the statement here made as to the difference between 
revenue and expenditure and the one made by Mr. Dockery, is due to the fact that 
here the whole deficiency already actually paid and hereafter to be paid on account 
of the failure of last year's appropriation is credited as Mr^ Sayers credits it, by 
deduction in full from the total appropriations, while Mr. Dockery credits only 
what was actually paid out up to July 1, 1890, the end of the fiscal year, under the 
deficiency appropriation acts of the present Congress. 

After Passage of Tariff Bill. 

After the foregoing was prepared and prior to adjournment, Congress made 
various items of appropriation, running the aggregate, less deficiencies resulting 
from failure of last year's appropriations, up to $425,746,842. There are, however, 
two circumstances that cause uncertainty as to results. First, the new tariff went 
into operation October 6, 1890, and its effect on the revenue, indicated under 
" Tariff," will have to be taken into consideration. Second, as a slight offset to the 
additional items of appropriation and the (supposed) reduction of the revenue to 
result from the new rates^of duty, there is an augmentation of revenue by reason 
of large and unanticipated importations during the last few months, which were 
due to the desire of the importers to take advantage of the lower taxes under th* 
old law. 

The unexpected increase of revenue will not amount to much, while the 
revenue for nine months of the year will be derived under the new act. Senator 
Aldrich said in his closing speech that his estimate of the reduction made by the 
bill as it passed was from $42,000,000 to $43,000,000. Taking, then, three-fourths 
of the smaller amount for the nine months, the reduction will be about $31,500,000. 
The account will then stand : 

Total appropriations, less deficiencies accrued $425,746,843 

Add deficiences to accrue 46,066,394 

Total current expenditures 471,812,736 

Deduct current revenue 418,914,337 

Excess of expenditures over revenue $ 52,898,399 

Therefore, accepting the smallest estimate of i-eduction of revenue made hj 
the friends of the new tariff' law, but taking no notice of the slight increase com- 
ing from recent large importations, the foregoing is the net result of ten months 
of Republican legislation. 

If we include the slight increase resulting from increased importations, it will 
still be apparent that the Republican party has provided for the expenditure of, in 
round numbers, $52,000,000 more than the income of the Government will amount to. 
In two years more, the pending bills carrying enormous'amounts, being passed and 
the regular appropriations made with their large increases, the people will have an 
opportunity to reflect while they are being taxed to make up for past folly. 

The safe course is to put a stop to this thing at the coming election. 



LABOR I.EGISLATION. 361 



LABOR LEGISLATION. 



TINKERING DEMOCRATIC MEASURES-LABOR BILLS 
"WITH PROPER AMENDMENTS." 



September 4tli Speaker Reed made a speech at Portland, Me., in which he said : 

" Notwithstanding the fact that by far the greater number of journals which 
represent organized labor are against the Republican party, notwithstanding the 
fact that their committees on legislation departed declaring, some of them, that no 
legislation could be had from the Republican House, it remains a fact that every 
bill which they presented, without exception, has been taken up, considered, 
debated, and, with proper amendTnents, has been passed." 

Various bills relating to the eight-hour law and other matters of especial 
interest to laborers were introduced and referred to the committee on labor and 
other committees of the House. The House having been in session since Decem- 
ber 2, 1889, proceeded under the following special order to consider labor bills : 

" That on Thursday and Saturday, August 28 and 30, after sixty minutes of 
Ihe morning hour are exhausted on said days, the House shall proceed to consider 
the bill (H. R. 9791) constituting eight hours a day's work for all laborers, work- 
men and mechanics employed for or on behalf of the Government of the United 
States ; that at 5 o'clock on Thursday, August 28, the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered ; that on Saturday, August 30, the bill (H. R, 9139) reported 
from the Committee on Labor relative to alien contract labor shall be considered ; 
and that at 4 o'clock on said day the previous question shall be considered as 
ordered. If the time herein designated shall not be required or consumed in the 
consideration of said bills, then the remaining time on either of said days shall be 
given to the consideration of other bills reported from the Committee on Labor in 
the order designated by said committee ; said order subject to general appropria- 
liion bills and conference reports thereon." 

Under the new code of rules, adopted to facilitate the transaction of business, 
labor would have had no chance of being heard. It must be understood that the 
House meets at 12 o'clock. Sixty minutes were taken up in the morning hour under 
this special order, which left the time from the expiration of the morning hour until 
■4 o'clock and 5 o'clock respectively for the consideration of labor's claims on the 
only two days that were given to their consideration. 

As an indication of the carefulness of the Republican committee in regard to 
labor legislation, it should be known that when bill No. 3928 was under considera- 
46 



362 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

tion and the report was ordered read for the information of the House. The clerk 
read the report made on hill No 328G, and the error was not discovered until the 
latter hill was under consideration, when Mr. Dockery, a Democrat from Missouri^ 
called attention to the repetition of the same report. This is shown on page 10201 
of the Becord. 

The House passed five bills under this special order, as follows : 

1. House hill 9791, constituting eight hours a day's work for Government 
workmen. 

2. House bill 11120, providing for the adjustment of accounts under the ©igJit 
hour law. 

3. House bill 3928, to prevent the employment of convict labor on Govera- 
ment works. 

4. House bill 9632, to amend the alien contract labor law. 

6. House bill 3286, to prevent the use of the products of convict labor bj tk« 
departments and in the construction of public works. 

The first bill was introduced in response to the demand throughout the world, 
and at the immediate request of the labor organizations, for fewer hours of labor. 
It was based on the idea that the Government should take the initiative in this 
movement for the devotion of one-third of a man's life to labor. 

All experience had taught that any law applying to those in the mediate or 
immediate employ of the Government which prohibited only compulsory labor for 
longer than eight hours was a mere nullity, so far as any benefit to the workmea 
was concerned, as under color of necessity and various other pretexts these men 
had always been, and probably always would be, "permitted" to work longer at 
the same wages ; and, accordingly, this bill, as introduced and favored by the repre- 
sentatives of organized labor, provided in its second section that it should be 
unlawful alike to permit or require a longer day's labor. 

But, on motion of Mr. Cutcheon, Republican, the House struck out the word 
"permit," and, as urged by the organizations, destroyed the whole beneficial 
effects of the law. 

The second bill sends claimants to the court of claims to litigate their 
demands for pay under the old eight-hour law. 

The third bill provides as indicated by its title. 

The fourth bill allows the importation of labor to be employed in new ind««- 
tries not now established in this country, probably with a view to assisting the tin- 
plate manufacturers in the establishment of their new industry, which they said 
the enormous rate of taxation placed on tin-plate would enable them to establisk 
and which would require so many thousands of American workmen. It also allow* 
the importation of workmen under the pretence of " assisting " relatives to com# 
to this country. 

The nature of the fifth bill is Indicated fully by its title. 

This is the sum and substance of what the House had done when Mr. R««d' 
made his Portland speech. 

The " proper amendments" made to the bills asked for in the interest of labor 
amended them so that they amounted to nothing and left the subjects <with which 
they dealt in no better condition, to say the least, than they were in when Congress 
met. 



LABOR LEGISLATION. 363 

History of liabor l.egislatioii. 

A brief history of labor legislation in Congress will not be out of place here. 
The first direct act of especial interest to workingmen was that passed by the 
Republican Congress in 1864. It was an act authorizing persons to make contracts 
abroad with laborers to come here and take the places of American workmen. It 
gave, or attempted to give, a lien on any property that the laborer might acquire 
here to secure advances made to him by his employer, and legalized the laborer's 
contract to pledge his wages for one year to reimburse any advances made by the 
employer to enable him to come to this country. This was the first contract labor 
law, and is what made it necessary for Congress to pass another contract law pro- 
hibiting the importation of laborers pledged to service. 

The Republican law remained in force until 1885, and during its existence over 
6,500,000 immigrants came to America. Laborers were imported under it up to 
the time it was repealed by a Democratic Congress in 1885. 

Several attempts were made before that year to repeal or modify it, but thejr 
failed because of Republican opposition. 

Finally Martin A. Foran, Democrat, of Ohio, passed a bill through the Demo- 
cratic House June 19, 1884, which went to the Republican Senate, where it was 
allowed to lie until February, 1885, when it was taken up and passed. It is the law 
that Mr. Reed's House has been tinkering under a special order. This law was 
strictly enforced during the Democratic administration. President Cleveland taking- 
a particular interest in it and by letter calling the attention of the United States 
district attorney to it. 

President Cleveland and his Secretary of the Treasury both recommended 
amendments to this law, covering the points in which it was found to be deficient. 
These recommendations related especially to appropriations for the better enforce- 
ment of the law, and to giving authority to the Secretary to return persons im- 
ported within a reasonable time after landing, in cases in which, at the time of land- 
ing, the contract for services had not been known. 

No complaint came from anybody that the law was not enforced when the 
Democrats were in power, but one of the most disgraceful scenes in Mr. Reed's 
House grew out of violations of the law in which one Campbell, of Pittsburg, was 
concerned. It was the case of the importation of laborers in the glass works, tried 
in the United States Court in Pennsylvania. 

The first eight-hour law was introduced by Mr. Rogers, Democrat, of New 
.Jersey, in 1866. The Congress was Republican and the bill was laid away and 
never considered. 

Mr. Niblack, Democrat, of Indiana, introduced a joint resolution in the Thirty- 
ninth Congress, which was Republican, declaring eight hours a day's work in the 
Government service. This, too, died in committee. 

March 14, 1867, Mr. Julian, Democrat, of Indiana, reintroduced the Rogers' 
bill. Mr. Holman asked for its consideration, but this also went to the Judiciary 
Committee, where it remained. 

In 1868 Genl. Banks, Republican, got an eight-hour law through the House 
and Thomas A. Hendricks got it through the Senate, against the protest of John 
Sherman and other Republicans. 

The history of the enforcement of this law down to the time of the Democratic 
administration is very brief ; it was not enforced at all. The Democratic President, 
however, had it enforced while he was in oflEice. 



364 DKMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



First Committee on I^abor. 



No Committee on Labor was appointed in the House until the Forty-eighth 
Congress, which was Democratic, though such a committee had been asked for in. 
Republican Congresses. That committee reported nine measures in the interest of 
labor : 

1 — A billHo establish a bureau of labor ; 2 — The bill to prohibit the importa- 
tion of contract labor; 3 — A bill to enforce the eight-hour law ; 4 — A joint reso- 
lution requiring the employment of citizens of the United States on government 
work ; 5 — Resolution to amend the constitution to prohibit the hiring out of con- 
victs by the State ; 6 — A bill to prohibit the hiring out of United States prisoners f 
7 — A bill granting leave of absence to employes of the government printing oflBce ; 
8 — A bill to grant leave of absence to letter-carriers ; 9 — A bill to make eflective 
the prohibition of Chinese immigration, etc. 

Most of of these either became laws or owed their failure to do so to a Repub- 
lican Senate during that and subsequent Congresses in which the House wa». 
Democratic. 

In the Fiftieth Congress, on motion of Hon. J. J. O'Neill, of Missouri, the fol- 
lowing was added to an appropriation bill. 

" The public printer is hereby directed to rigidly enforce the provisions of th& 
eight-hour law in the deparrment under his charge." 

In the same Democratic House the Labor committee got through a law ta 
establish a department of labor, and a law to limit the work of letter-carriers tO' 
eight hours. 

That Democratic House passed and sent to the Republican Senate, where the 
bills were killed, the following : 

1. A bill to prevent the use of the products of convict labor in the depart- 
ments and in public works ; 2 — A bill to prevent the employment of alien 
labor by the Government or on public work ; 3 — A bill to protect the wages 
of mechanics, laborers and servants ; 4 — A bill to create a board of arbitra- 
tion between transportation companies and their employes ; 5 — A bill to con-^ 
fine the sale of the products of convict labor to the States in which they 
are produced. 

So it will be seen that Mr. Reed's House has only been threshing over old 
Democratic straw, the grain froui which would long ago been given to the 
working people of the country had the Republican Senate been as regardful 
of their interests as was the Democratic House. 

Pretentious and worthless amendments to Democratic statutes are made to 
deceive those most interested. Some bills are passed covering imperfectly the; 
subjects that would have been remedied by the enactment of the bills that passed 
the Democratic House ; other bills that passed the same House are unheard of in 
this and then Mr. Reed calls attention to what he has done by saying that " not- 
withstanding the fact that the greater number of the journals which represent 
organized labor are against the Republican party, it remains a fact that every bill 
which they presented, without exception, has been 'taken up, considered, debated 
and with proper amendments, has been passed." 

Tha following concerning the bill in relation to the eight-hour law, was written 
by Hon. Amos J. Cummings, of New York: 



LABOR LEGISLATION. 365 

I. What the Friends of the Bill (Say. 

A bill was drawn up and introduced by Mr. Gest of Illinois. It was thor- 
oughly discussed in the Committee on Labor and reported to the House favorably 
on February 25. It provided for the submission of the cases to the Court of Claims. 

Friends of the bill give a detailed account of their efforts to get it before the 
House. They say that they urged the Committee on Rules to give the Committee 
on Labor a day for tiie consideration of the bill. The Speaker is chairman of this 
committee. His excuse for non-action was that Mr. Cannon of Illinois would 
make a point of order against the bill. It contained the words *' shall be paid " and 
Cannon proposed to object to them upon the ground that they called for an ap- 
propriation. Under the rules bills calling for an appropriation must be considered 
in committee of the whole. If this bill got into committee of the whole it could 
be smothered with amendments, and would drag on interminably. 

It is averred that there were nearly a thousand men in the Speaker's Congress- 
ional district among the claimants. Many of them had worked in the Kittery 
Navy Yard. A delegation, headed by Dr. Wentworth, a staunch supporter of the 
Speaker for years, came down to see* him and urge him to clear the way for the 
bill. He sent for Judge Daniels, an attorney for the claimants, and asked if he 
could not change the bill so as to avoid the proposed point of order. The judge 
afterward struck out the words " shall be paid " and inserted instead " and has not 
been paid the full price of a day's work for each eight hours he has been employed, 
shall have the right to bring suit in the United States Court of Claims to recover 
the deficiency." 

The friends of the bill say that the amended bill was taken back to the 
Speaker, who read it and said it was all right. Turning to his secretary, he said : 
" Call Mr. Wade in and have him introduce this new bill and report it back from 
his committee. When I come back we'll take it up in the morning hour and 
pass it." 

Mr. Wade is chairman of the Committee on Labor. He had the new bill in- 
troduced and reported it back from the committee favorably. 

Meantime the Speaker had been called to Maine. Upon his return Mr. Wade 
showed him the bill and he replied that it was all right. It went upon the 
House calendar and there remained for weeks and months. The interested 
mechanics and laborers again became anxious. Another delegation from Maine 
came down. The speaker was urged to let the new bill come before the House for 
consideration. To their astonishment the Speaker declared that he had never seen 
it. Mr. Wade next saw Mr. Reed. He said that he had had the bill introduced 
under the advice of Col. Allen, the Speaker's secretary, and had reported it to the 
House under instructions from his committee. Again the Speaker said that he did 
not remember ever seeing the bill before or ever talking about it with anybody. 

Mr. Wade replied that he must go home and take care of his fences. He 
wanted the bill passed before he went. He asked the Speaker to take the bill and 
fix it in accordance with his own views. Mr. Reed spent some minutes trying to 
change it, but finally threw down his pen and said, ** The whole confounded thing 
is wrong,** 

Mr. Wade replied that he wanted the bill passed before he went home. 

" You can go home." the Speaker replied. " The biU will not be passed this 
session." 

After this, however, Mr. Reed received frequent letters from home, importun- 
ing him in behalf of the bill. One day he said to Mr. Wade, " I'm having trouble 



3GG DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

with men in my district about that eight-hour back-pay bill. I wish you would 
have the bill fixed so that it can be passed." 

Afterwards the Speaker and Judge Daniels talked over the matter for perhaps 
an hour. Mr. Heed said : "As the bill stands, I shall be obliged to sustain a point 
of order against ii>. I want it fixed so that I can keep it out of committee of the 
whole." 

The Judge replied : " There is no reason why you should sustain a point of 
order against it. The Woodbridge bill is exactly the same as this, and you laid 
down the rule in that case that if a bill did not call for an appropriation, or if it 
could be executed without making an appropriation, it was not subject to the point 
of order." 

" Well," replied the Speaker, " the Woodbridge case was not just such a case 
as this." 

A't this the Judge fired up, and said : *' Take this bill and find anything in it 
that calls for an appropriation." 

The Speaker looked over the bill and could find nothing. Section 1 ran thus : 

That whoever, as a laborer, workmian, or mechanic, has been employed hy or on 
behalf of the Government of the United States since June 25, 1888, the date of the act con- 
stituting eight hours a day's work, and has not been paid the full price of a day's work for 
each eight hours he has been so employed, shall have the right to bring suit In the 
United States Court of Claims to recover such deficiency, and the said court is hereby au- 
thorized to take jurisdiction of all such cases without regard to the lapse of time, aad 
adjudicate upon the basis of eight hours constituting a day's work," &c. 

Speaker Reed interlined in this section these words : 

If, in the opinion of the court, he was under the statute of June 25, 1868, or any other 
existing law, entitled to a full price of a day's work for eight hours' labor or service. 

The section continues thus : 

And for that length of service the claimant shall be entitled to recover the fuU price 
of a day's work, whatever that may be, less the amount he has already received, and in 
that ratio for any fraction of a day. 

The Speaker added to these words the following : 

If, in the opinion of the comi;, such was the meaning of the said act of June 35, 1868, 
or any other existing law. 

After interlining as above, the Speaker passed it to Judge Daniels, saying : " If 
you and I can agree upon that, I will stand by it. Even if the point of order is 
made, I'll not sustain it." 

" Well," replied Judge Daniels, " if I do that, when will you allow it to come 
up." 

" As soon as we get through this election case," the Speaker replied. 

The Judge did not accept the change at once. It will be seen that the Speaker's 
amendment gave the court power to determine a matter which had already been 
settled by act of Congress May 18, 1872. This act provided that the men who had 
worked under the law from the date it took effect up to President Grant's first pro- 
cl-i)nation forbidding any reduction of wages in consequence of the reduction of 
tat? hours of labor, should be paid for their extra work. 

Under this stress the judge accepted the bill. It was the best he could get. 
He could thus pull the bill out of the House and look for relief in the Senate. 
Before coming to this -conclusion he saw Governor Dingle}-, Charles H. Turner, 
Ja nes Buchanan, and Mr. Gest — all members of the Committee on Labor. They 
ailvised him to accept it so as to get the bill before the House. It was his only 
chance. He took it. 



LABOR LEGISLATION. 307 

II. What tlie Record Shows. 

Six weeks after the bill had been amended in accordance with the Speaker's 
wishes the morning hour was revived. It had been buried for months. It was 
practically revived under a special order from the Committee on Rules. It set down 
certain days for the condideration of the Agricultural College bill, the Lard bill and 
the Butterworth Option bill. In its special order the committee provided that it 
•hoBld not interfere with the morning hour. So the bill came before the House in 
the morning hour. Tinkering began immediately. Mr. Lacy, of Iowa, (Rep.) 
amended the second section with this provision : 

Provided, that upon the commencement of such suit, any claimant in such case may 
petition to be admitted as a prosecuting claimant, and the Department of Justice shatl 
prepare a form of petition for such purpose, and shall fvu"nish the same in blank, with 
proper mstructions for executing and filing the same, to any applying claimant, free of 
eost, and upon the filing with the clerk of the Court of Claims of such petition, properly 
executed and verified under oath, such clerk shall forthwith notify the Department of 
Justice of such filing, and if no notice appears to the contrary such claimant shall be 
admitted as a party to the suit, and, unless the Government shall traverse any material 
allegation in such petition, no attorney or agent shall be entitled to demand or receive 
any pay or compensation whatever for any services rendered, or alleged to have been 
rendered, to said applying claimant In connection with the preparation or filing of said 
petition, or the presentation of said petitioner's claim ; provided that it shall be imlawful 
for any attorney to demand or receive any fees for service in such suit, or collecting of 
such claims exceeding 5 per cent, of the amount of any such claim ; payment on such 
Judgment shall only be made to the claimant in person, or to the heirs, or administrators, 
or executors of such claimant, if dead, and not to any agent, attorney or assignee. 

This straight] acket amendment left those claimants out in the cold whose 
claims ranged from $25 to $150. No respectable attorney would prosecute a 
claim for $5 or even for $10. It might be said that these small claimants conld join 
hands and hire an attorney to prosecute their claims. This could hardly be done, 
for they are scattered from Maine to Oregon. Those who think that the amend- 
ments favored the claimants by cheating their attorneys are mistaken. It simply 
deprived the smaller claimants of the benefit of the law. They cannot prosecute 
their own cases at Washington. And the amendment makes it unlawful for an 
attorney to take a fee that would compensate him for his trouble. How then is 
the small claimant to get his money ? If the Government owes the money, it is 
plain that it should pay it without conditions, the same as it pays any of its other 
creditors. However, Lacey's amendment was carried. 

But the really fatal amendment was one offered by Mr. Brewer, of Michigan, 
(Rep.) which was adopted. It took the life out of the bill. Here it is : 

Provided, further, that this act shall not be operative whenever the court shall find 
that such laborer, workman or mechanic performed such labor or service under any con- 
tract, express or implied, and has been paid therefor the amount agreed upon. 

The meaning of this amendment is plain. In some of the arsenals in the 
West the workmen were forced to sign a contract to work ten hours instead of 
eight, without any increase of wages, under pain of dismissal. In other places the 
men worked ten hours, without protest, under threat of dismissal if they did not 
do so. In other cases the men worked ten hours under protest, and in still others 
worked ten hours under an express promise on the part of the Secretary of the 
Navy that they would be paid for the extra work. This amendment bmds the 
workmen of the arsenal by an agreement which they were forced into making by 
the Government officials. It leaves out the men who had worked the extra hours 
without protest under fear of discharge. It even gives the court power to leave 
out the men who had protested. It leaves out the men who had worked ten hours 
under an express promise from the Secretary of the Navy that they should have 
pay for tlie extra hours. The Court of Claims may say that the men, liaving ac- 



368 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

cepted what was paid them at the time, have waived their right to the extra pay, 
and the law construes that into an implied agreement to take what they got in satis- 
faction of the debt. In fine, this amendment emasculated the bill. 

These vicious amendments were never debated for a moment. They were 
attached to the bill by the Republican majority in the House, and put through 
under the previous question without one word of discussion. The bill went to 
the Senate emasculated. 

Such is a clear and concise statement as to the facts concerning the action of the 
House on the eight-hour back-pay bill. The new eight-hour bill and the contract 
labor bill went through the same mill. Both were emasculated before they were 
sent to the Senate. 



When it is remembered how little the Republican party has done for labor and 
how much it has done against its interests, and this is all contrasted with the 
record of the Democratic party, it ceases to be a wonder that labor and labor 
journals are opposed to Republican success. 

The little consideration so tardily and reluctanly given by Mr. Reed's House 
and pointed to by him as a very liberal concession to an enemy, is hardly calcu- 
lated fo draw to him and his party the enthusiastic support of labor, its organiza- 
tions or its journals, and especially in view of the fact that at the time this goes to 
press these bills lie unconsidered in the Republican Senate, the body that smothered 
the Democratic measures pertaining to the same subjects. Subsequently strong 
efforts were made to have labor bills considered in the Senate, but that body refused 
to yield to them. 



PUBLIC LANDS. 369 



PUBLIC LANDS. 



REPUBLICAN DONATIONS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN TO 
CORPORATIONS. 



J>eiiiocratic Forfeitures, and liaw to Prohibit Alien Ijand- 

lordisni. 

The public domain of the United States originally consisted of : 

•Cession from original States 229,987,187 acres. 

Louisiana pm-chase (1843) 756,961,280 »» 

Florida (1819) 37,931,280 «i 

Mexican treaty (1848) 334,443,520 « 

Purchase from Texas (1851) '61,892,480 n 

Gadsden purchase (1853) 29,142,400 it 

Alaska (1867) 369,529,600 u 

Total 1,819,889,987 u 

Every inch of this territory, except Alaska, for which we paid $7,300,000, was 
acquired before the Republican party came into existence, and all except the pur- 
chase from Texas, due to the Whig party, and Alaska, a Republican acquisition 
was annexed by the Democratic party. 

While the Democratic party has added this magnificent empire to our territory, 
it has never given a foot of it directly to any private corporation. It gave some of 
it to the States and the States gave it to railroads and other corporations ; as, for 
instance, the State of Illinois now receives 7 per cent, of the gross earnings of the 
Illinois Central road in consequence of such a grant. 

The Republicans, as soon as they got into power began to give away the pub- 
lic lands. The first act was passed July 1, 1862, granting directly to the Union 
Pacific railroad company the odd numbered sections within 10 miles on each side 
of 1,038 miles of its proposed line, and in 1864 this was extended to 20 miles, mak- 
ing a strip 40 miles wide from the Missouri river to the Pacific ocean. 

This table shows the grants made by the Republican party in 14 years, and all 
grants previously made by all other parties : 

ACRES. 

Total to railroads 163,643,944.83 

To States for railroad purposes 19,240,883.80 

To States for wagon roads 2,530,379.84 

Total 14 years 185,415,208.47 

March 4, 1789, to March 4 1861, 72 years, to States for rail and wagon roads 29,824,033.37 

Excess in 14 years 155,591,155.10 

The 14 years are from March 4, 1861 to March 4, 1875, when a Democrat House 
was elected. Since that time no grants have been made. 
47 



370 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK, 



Forfeiture of ITiiearnecl liands. 

These grants of land were on the condition that the roads should be built. In- 
sofar as the conditions of the grants were complied with, there could be no proper 
demand for the forfeiture of any of the land, whatever may be thought as to the 
original propriety of giving such an area to private corporations, but it is aa 
astounding fact that, until the Forty-eighth Congress, which was Democratic, not 
an acre of land was forfeited because of non-compliance with conditions or for 
any other cause. January 18, 1869, Hon. William S. Holman, Democrat of Indiana, 
introduced the following resolution in the House of Representatives : 

" That grants of public lands to corporations ought to be discontinued ; and the 
\fhole of such lands ought to be held as a sacred trust to secure homesteads t© 
actual settlers, and for no other purpose whatever." 

Mr. Washburn, Republican, from Indiana, moved to lay this on the table and, 
the Democratic membership being insignificant in number, the resolution went on 
the table ; many of the Republican leaders of to-day and others now dead voting to 
place it there. 

But when the Forty-eighth Congress came in, the Democratic Speaker appointed 
a Committee on Public Lands, that recommended the restoration of this vast do- 
main to the people for homes, and that Congress began what, with the further work 
of the two next succeeding Democratic Congresses and the Democratic President, 
resulted in the forfeiture of nearly all the land that was unearned and then forfeit- 
able by reason of the entire failure of the companies to build the roads. 

Here is a table showing the lands forfeited through the efforts of the Demo- 
cratic Houses in the Forty-eighth, Forty-ninth and Fiftieth Congresses. 



NAME OF ROAD. 



Oregon Central 

Texas Pacillc 

Iron Mountain and Missouri 

Atlantic and Pacific , 

Tuscaloosa and Mobile 

Mobile and Nev/ Orleans 

Elyton and Beard's Bluff 

Memphis and Charleston 

Savannah and Albany 

New Orleans and State Line 

Iron Mountain and Arkansas 

Marquette, Huhf?ton and Ontonagon. 
Ontonagon and Brule Kiver 



Total. 



Congress. 



48th. 



49th. 



50th. 



Acres, 



810,88© 
18,500,000 

300,00© 
33,871,380 



r,ooo,« 



294,409 
311^ 



50,987,810 



* This Is a territory nearly as large as the State of Kansas. 

In the Fiftieth Congress a bill was introduced in the House to forfeit all lands 
adjacent to and along lines of road that had not been built at all and all lands ad- 
jacent to and along lines that had not been built within the time limited in the 
grants. In the Republican Senate a bill was introduced to forfeit only those lands 
along roads that would not have been constructed at the time of the bill's becom- 
ing a law. This bill got through the Senate before the other could pass the 
House; but the House amended it by inserting its provision for the forfeiture of 
all land unearned according to the conditions of the grant. 

The Republican Senate refused to concur in this amendment and a conference 
was ordered. 



PUBLIC LANDS. 37; 

The disagreement between the Democratic and Republican branches -^ Con- 
gress was this • The proposition of the House was to forfeit 54,323,996 a-^^es and 
the Senate proposed to forfeit only 6,180,803 acres. The difference being 4^,143,193 
acres, of which one company, the Northern Pacific, claimed 34,217,741 acres. 

The conference could never agree ; the Senate, representing the railroads, and 
the House, representing the people, adhered to their respective propositions, and 
the Fiftieth Congress adjourned without action, to be succeeded by the Fifty-first 
Congress, Republican in both branches. 

The following table and statement shows the quantity of land actually restored 
to the public domain by the administration, exclusive of forfeiture bills : 

Acreage. 

Lands in granted railroad lands restored 2,108,417.38 

Railroad indemnity lands restored 81,333,600.00 

Private land claims ; withdrawn lands restored 576,000 00 

Entries under pre-emption, homestead, timber-culture, desert, mineral and 
timber-land laws canceled in regular course of examination and proceed- 
ings in General Land Office for abandonment, illegality, and other causes. . ?»?,460,608.74 
Invalid State elections restored to United States " 968 747.62 

Total actually restored to the public domain and opened to entry and 

settlement by the executive department 0B,437 373.59 

So we have the following results : 

.A.C1T6S 

Forfeited by Congress 50,983,240.00 

Restored by Executive orders 53,437,373.59 

Total added to public domain 103,430,613.59 

It would be by no means a full statement of the facts to omit notice of the 
struggle through which the Democratic party passed in order to achieve this 
result. With a few very notable exceptions, the Republicans opposed the for- 
feitures at every step, in both the House and Senate. 

Present Congress. 

In this Congress Senator Plumb introduced a bill embodying the Republican 
theory as announced in former Congresses. 

There had originally been 37 aided roads that had failed either wholly or in 
part to build their lines. There had been forfeitures in twelve ; in nine other cases 
the roads had been completed after the time limited in the grants. This left six- 
teen to be dealt with by Congress, according to the Republican idea, and accord- 
ingly the bill will restore to the public domain about 5,000,000 of acres and leave 
the roads in possession of all the rest. 

The result of this legislation will be to confirm to one road, the Northern 
Pacific, land worth more than $80,000,000, which, added to the immense area 
already taken under the grant, will make a pure gift to this company of land ex- 
ceeding in value, even at the average price heretofore obtained by the company for 
portions sold by it, the total cost of its 2700 miles of road by about $90,000,000. 
But under a decision of a Republican United States Circuit judge, now pending an 
appeal in the Supreme Court, a large proportion (5,000,000 acres) of the immense 
tracts that will be confirmed by this act is valuable mineral lands, probably worth 
many times the average price heretofore received for agricultural lands ; and this 
in the face of the fact that Congress stipulated that no mineral lands, except 
coal and iron, should go by its grant. 

The Democratic minority in this Congress insisted first upon the original 
Democratic proposition to declare a legislative forfeiture, and when that was re- 
jected by the House, the}' insisted upon amending the bill so as to submit to the 



372 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

courts the question of tlie right to forfeit those lands claimed by the roads because 
of their having constructed their lines since the expiration of the time limited in 
the grant for their construction. The Republican House rejected this also. 

This bill will end forfeitures. The Republicans have packed the Senate so 
that no Democratic forfeiture can get through for many years. The longer the 
subject is delayed, the more roads will be constructed and then, upon the Republican 
theory, these roads will be entitled to retain their lands, though not earned accord- 
ing to the terms of the grants. 

Wliat nemocraey Has l>one. 

From the foregoing it will be seen that the Democratic party, through its 
Houses of Representatives and administration, has restored to the " heritage of 
the people," out of lands given away by Republican Congresses, homes of 160 
acres each for nearly 650,000 families ; and if all the recommendations and attempts 
made by these Houses and the administration could have been prosecuted to their 
successful close, the result would have been homes for, in round numberSy 
1,000,000 families, even upon the liberal American allowance of a quarter section 
of land to the family ; and this would have been equal to the territory of Germany 
and Switzerland, with a population of 45,000,000 souls, or nearly twice as large as. 
England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, composing the kingdom of Great Britain^ 
with a population of more than 37,000,000 souls, while the Republican bill, ending^ 
all forfeitures, can result in restoring only a little more than 5,000,000 acres as- 
homes for the people. 

The bill passed. 

Alien liandlordism. 

It became quite a fad during the Republican sway for my lord and my lady 
to acquire real estate in America and to establish in this country a sort of British, 
province with all the accessories of British landlordism. 

Here is a partial list of the holdings of our alien landlords, for which they are 

indebted to the Republican party : 

Acres. 

An English syndicate, No. 3, in Texas 3,000,000 

The HoUant Company, New Mexico t 4,500,000 

Sir Edward Reid, and a syndicate, in Florida 2,000,000- 

English syndicate in Mississippi 1,000,000 

Marquis of T weedale 1,750,00» 

Phillips, Marshall & Co., of London 1,300,000 

German syndicate 1,100,000 

An glo- American syndicate, Mr. Rogers, President, London 750,000 

Bryan H. Evans, of London, Mississippi 700,000 

Duke of Sutherland 425,000 

British Land Company, in Kansas 320,000 

William Walley, M, P., Peterboro, England 310,000 

Missouri Land Company, Edinburgh, Scotland 300,000 

Robert Tennant, of London 230,000 

Dundee Land Company, Scotland 247,000' 

Lord Du^i^ore 120,000' 

Ben.lamin Newgas, Liverpool -^SS'^SR' 

Lord Houghton, In Florida ^'H^' 

Lord Dunravin, in Colorado ^Jc'JSa' 

English Land Company, in Florida S!'^ 

English Land Company, in Arkansas ?X'}55\ 

Albert Peel, M. P., Leicestershire, England •'y'XXX 

Sir J. M. Rav, Yorkshh-e, England o^^' 

Alexander Grant, of London, In Kansas -.VX'JSX' 

English syndicate (represented by Close Bros.), Wisconsin i3xxX 

M. Ellerhaiiser, of Halifax, Novia Scotia, in West Virginia °9x'SSS 

A Scotcli Syndicate, in Florida -.^rXJi 

Missouri Land Company, of Edinburgh, Scotland ib.'),uw 

Total 20,747,000. 

* ********** 



PUBLIC LANDS. 



375 



With all the curses which we have heard heaped upon the land system of 
England and the land monopoly of England and Wales, it is no comparison to our 
own. The great land-holders of England are mere "pygmies" when compared 
with our " giants." In a recent work entitled " Land and Labor in the United 
States," by William C. Moody, the author, at page 88 of his book, gives the follow-^ 
ing as the size of English land holding : 

The following is a list of the whole number of land-owners in England and 
Wales who are possessed of 50,000 and more acres of land each, and the actual 
amount of their holding, ly which it will be seen that there are but three who 
own more than 100,000 acres each, and no one has an estate that reaches 200;00& 
acres : 

SIZE OF ENGLISH LAKD HOLDINGS. 



Names of owners. Acres. 

Marquis of Aliesbury . . . . • 1 1 « • i » 1 1 1 1 > . . . 55,061 

Duke of Beaufort 51,085 

Duke of Bedford 87,507 

Earl of Brownlow 57,799 

Earl of Carlisle 78,540 

Earl of Cawdor 51,538 

Duke of Cleveland 106,ft50 

Earl Of Derby 55,598 

Duke Of Devonshire 148,639 



Names of owners. Acres. 

Lord Leconfleld .•*«.•.....«... 66,101 

Lord Londesborough 52,655^ 

Lord Lonsdale 67,950 

Duke of Northumberland 191,180i 

Duke of Portland 55,259> 

Earl of Powis ; 70,039' 

LadyWlUoughby 59,913- 

Sir W.W.Winn 91,03^ 

Earl of Yarborough 55,370' 



Such was the statement made five years ago by Hon. S. M. Stockslager, then a 
Eepresentative from Indiana, and subsequently Commissioner of the General Land, 
office under President Cleveland. 

In the Forty-ninth Congress, the Democratic House of Representatives, ob~ 
serving this abuse of the rights of onr own citizens, passed an act (chapter 340i» 
Statutes at Large, Forty-ninth Congress) putting a stop to alien acquisition of lands 
in the Territories and District of Columbia. Since that time no lands have been 
acquired by aliens, and unless the Republican party repeals or modifies the Demo- 
cratic law, none can be acquired hereafter by them. 

Prosperity I>ue to Free liands. 

As to the free lands of America, more than to all else combined the people owe^ 
their higher wages and better style of living, the Democratic party asks that, witk 
the records of the two parties before them, one covering extravagance of every- 
sort and the most onerous system of taxation, the other covering economy in every- 
thing and taxation limited to the necessities of the Government economically ad- 
ministered, the voters may pass judgment at the poUs. 



374 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



DEMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 



REPUBLICAN HYPOCRICY.-RECORDS OF TWO 
PARTIES. 



The free coinage of silver has never been a party question 
in this 'Country, and neither party has ever been unanimous 
either in favor of or against it, though the records of the Fifty- 
first Congress show that the Democratic Senators and Repre- 
sentatives are practically a unit in support of the free and 
unlimited coinage of the white metal. 

The Democratic platform of 1884, reaffirmed in 1888, spoke 
as follows on the coinage : 

" We believe in honest money, the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution, 
and a circulating medium convertible into such money without loss." 

The Republican platform of 1888 spoke thus : 

" The Republican party is in favor of the use of both gold and silver as money." 

The meaning of these declarations can best be learned from 
the history of silver coinage measures in Congress. 

In all its years of power the Democratic party never enacted 
a law to demonetize silver, but constantly and unceasingly 
maintained its free and unlimited coinage from 1792 to 1873, 
when the Republicans, being in a large majority in both Houses 
of Congress and having all departments of the Government, 
enacted a law in February prohibiting the coinage of the stand- 
ard silver dollar. 

In December, 1876, a Democratic House of Representatives 
enacted a free silver coinage bill, which went to its grave in the 
Republican Senate. 

In November, 1877, Hon. R. P. Bland, Democrat, Missouri, 
the father of the Bland silver dollar, moved in the House to sus- 
pend the rules and pass a free coinage bill. The vote on this 
motion stood : Affirmative, Democrats 97, Republicans 67 ; nega- 
tive. Democrats 10, Republicans 24. 

This bill went to the Republican Senate, where free coinage 
was stricken out and limited coinage inserted. On the motion 
to amend the bill by striking out and inserting, the vote stood : 
Affirmative, Republicans 33, Democrats 16 ; negative. Democrats 
18, Republicans 4. 



DEMONETIZATION OF 'SILVER. 375 

The next important vote on the subject was in the Forty- 
ninth Congress, April 8, 1886. The House was Democratic. A 
free coinage bill was pending, when the following substitute wa& 
offered : 

Strike out all alter the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following, 
masiely: 

" That unless meantime, through concurrent action of the nations of Europe 
with the United States, silver be remonetized prior to July 1, 1889, that then and 
thereafter so much of the act of February 28, 1878, entitled 'An act to authorize 
the coinage of the standard silver dollar and to restore its legal-tender character,* 
as authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase silver bullion 
and cause the same to be coined, shall be suspended until further action by 
CoBgress." 

The vote on this stood : Affirmative, Democrats 33, Kepub- 
licans, 51 ; negative. Democrats 130, Republicans 71. 

The question then recurred to the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill. The vote on this stood : Affirmative, Dem- 
ocrats 96, Republicans 30 ; negative. Democrats 70, Republicans 
93. The Republicans, by a vote against almost as large as the 
Democratic vote for the engrossment and third reading, defeated 
the bill. 

This brings us to the present or Fifty-first Congress, when 
the platforms of the two parties were interpreted by the parties 
themselves. 

Thursday, June 5, 1890, the Committee on Rules, through 
Hon. Wm. McKinley, the author of the Republican platform of 
1888, reported a special order providing for the consideration of 
the silver bill (House bill 5381) immediately after the adoption 
of the resolution until 3 o'clock, June 7, 1890, when the previous 
question was to be considered as ordered and the bill placed upon 
its passage. 

The Democrats protested against this resolution, and in the 
course of the debate Mr. Bland said : 

Now, gentlemen who are in favor of free coinage can have a vote on that 
question by voting down this order, and I want the country and this House to un- 
derstand, and I want it to go into the record here, that every gentleman who votes 
for this order votes against free coinage, votes to gag this House and prevent it 
from passing upon the question of free coinage, and I dare gentlemen to face their 
•onstituents on that proposition. You gentlemen from the mining States, you 
gentlemen from the West, whose people are demanding the free coinage of silver, 
I appeal to you. You know that a vote to pass this order gags your own voices 
and your own votes upon this question, and your constituents shall know it. 

Now go on the record if you dare to do it. 

Here is an order that cuts off all amendments of that sort, that gags this 
House ; and every gentleman representing a free-coinage constituency who votes 
for this order votes to gag himself, votes against free coinage, and he ought to 
stand condemned as utterly unfit to represent a people who favor that measure. 
[Applause on the Democratic side.] And the people will remember him. A maa 



:376 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



who has not the manhood and the independence to stand up against this gag rule 
is an unfit Representative for intelligent people who want free coinage. [Ap- 
plause.] 

The vote was taken and stood as follows: 







YEAS-120. 


Adams, 


Craig, 


La Follette, 


Allen, Mich. 


Dalzell, 


Laws, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Darlington, 


Lind, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


Dingley, 


Lodge, 


Baker, 


Dolliver, 


Mason, 


Bayne, 


Dorsey, 


McComas, 


Beckwith, 


Dunnell, 


McCord, 


Belden, 


Evans, 


McCormick, 


Belknap, 


Farquhar, 


McDuffle, 


Bergen, 


Finley, 


McKinley, 


Bingham, 


Flick,< 


Miles, 


Bliss, 


Flood, 


Milliken, 


Blount, 


Frank, 


Mofflt, 


Brewer, 


Gear, 


Moore, N. H. 


Brosiue, 


Gifford, 


Morey, 


Brower, 


Greenhalge, 


Morrill, 


Browne, Va. 


Hall, 


Morse, ; 


Buctianen, N. J. 


Hansbrough, 


Mudd, 


Burrows, 


Harmer, 


O'Donnell, 


Burton, 


Haugen, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Butterworth, 


Henderson, 111. 


Osborne. 


Caldwell, 


Henderson, Iowa, 


Payne, 


Cannon, 


Hitt, 


Payson, 


Caswell, 


Hopkins, 


Perkins, 


Cheadle, 


Houk, 


Pickler, 


Clark, Wis. 


Kennedy, 


Post, 


Cogswell, 


Kerr, Iowa. 


Haines, 


Coleman, 


Ketcham, 


Randall, 


Comstock, 


Kinsey, 


Ray, 


Conger, 


Lacey, 


Reed, Iowa. 


Bepublicans, 119, 


Democrats, 1. 


NAYS-117. 


Abbott, 


T)argan, 


Lester, Ga. 


Alderson, 


Davidson, 


Lewis, 


Anderson, Kaus. 


De Haven, 


Magner, 


Bankhead, 


Dockery, 


Mansur, 


Barnes, 


Dunphy, 


Martin, Ind. 


Bartine, 


Edmunds, 


McAdoo, 


Barwig, 


Elliott, 


McCarthy, 


Biggs, 


Ellis, 


McClammy, 


Blanchard, 


Enloe, 


McClellan, 


Bland, 


Featherston, 


McCreary, 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Fitch, 


McRae, 


Brickner, 


Flower, 


Montgomery, 


Brookshire, 
Brown, J. B. 


Forney, 


Moore, Tex. 


Fowler, 


Morgan, 


Bninner, 


Funston, 


Morrow, 


Buchanan, Va. 


Goodnight, 


Mutchler, 


Buckalew, 


Grimes, 


Gates, 


Bynum, 


Hatch, 


O'Ferrall, 
O'Neall, Ind. 


■Candler, Ga. 


Hayes, 


-Caruth, 


Haynes, 


O'Neill, Mass. 


Chipman, 


Heard, 


Outhwaite, 


<:Jlancy, 


Hemphill, 
Henderson, N. C. 


Owens, Ohio. 


Clarke, Ala. 


Parrett, 


Clunie, 


Herbert, 


Paynter, 


Cobb, 


Hermann, 


Peel, 


Connell, 


Holman, 


Perry, 


Cooper, Ind. 


Kelley, 


Pierce, 


Cowles, 


Kilgore, 


Quinn, 
Heilly, 


Crisp, 


Lane, 


^hilberson, Tex. 


Lanham, 


Richardson, 


Democrats 106, Ilepublcans IL 





Reybum, 

Rife, 

Rockwell, 

Rowell, 

Russell, 

Scull, 

Slmonds, 

Smith, W. Va. 

Smyser, 

Snider, 

Stephenson. 

Stivers, 

Stockbridge, 

Struble, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, E. B. 

Taylor, 111. 

Taylor, Tenn. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, 

Turner, Kans. 

Van Schaick, 

Wade, 

Walker, Mass. 

Wickham, 

Williams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 

Yardley. 



Robertson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, . 

Sayers, 

Seney, 

Shively, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Townsend, Colo. 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Tex. 

Vandever, 

Vaux, 

Walker, Mo. 

Washington, 

Whitthorne, 

Wlke, 

WIllcox, 

Wllllam8,Ill. 

Wilson, W. T*. 



So the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. Blount, a Democrat, who voted for the resolution, did so in order to m«T« 
« reconsideration. 



DEMONETIZATION OP SILVER. 



377 



He moved the reconsideration, and Mr. McKinley moved to^ 
lay that motion on the table. 

Mr. Blount demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered. The vote then stood: 



Beyburn, 

Rife, 

Roclrvvcll, 

Rowell, 

Russell, 

Scull, 

SlmOncls. 

Smith, W. Va. 

Srayser, 

Snider, 

Stephenson, 

Stivers, 

Stockbridge, 

Struble, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, E. B. 

Taylor, 111. 

Taylor, Tenn. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, 

Vandever, 

Van Schaick, 

Wade, 

Walker, Mass. 

Watson, 

Wickham, 

Williams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 

Yai'dley. 



Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Sayei-s, 

Seney, 

Shively, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Townsend, Colo. 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Turnei-, Ga. 

Vaux, 

Walker, Mo. 

Washington, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whitthorne, 

Wike, 

Wiley. 

Willcox, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson. W. Va. 

Wilson Mo. 







TEAS— 134. 


Adams, 


Dalzell, 


Lacey, 


Allen, Mich. 


Darlington 


La Follette, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Dingley, 


Laws, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


Dolliver, 


Lind, 


Baker, 


Dorsey, 


Lodge, 


Banks, 


Dunnell, 


Mason, 


Bayne, 
Beckwith, 


Evans, 


McComas, 


Farquhar, 


McCord, 


Belden, 


Featherston 


McCormick, 


Belknap, 


Finley, 


McDuffle, 


Bergen, 


Flick, 


McKinley, 


Bingham, 


Flood, 


Miles, 


Bliss, 


Frank, 


Milliken, 


Brewer, 


Gear, 


Mofflt, 


Brosius, 


Gifford, 


Moore, N. H. 


Brower, 


Gest, 


Morey, 
Morrill, 


Browne, Va. 


Greenhalge, 


Buchanan, N. J. 


HaU, 


Morse, 


Burrows, 


Hansbrough, 


Mudd, 


Burton, 


Harmer, 


O'Donnell, 


Butterworth, 


Haugen, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Caldwell, 


Henderson, 111. 


Osborne, 


Cannon, 


Hendei-son, Iowa. 


Payne, 


Caswell, 


Hill, 


Payson, 


Cheadle, 
Clark, Wis. 


Hitt, 


Perkins, 


Hopkins, 


PIckler, 


Cogswell, 
Coleman, 


Houk, 


Post, 


Kennedy, 


Raines, 


Cometock, 


Kerr, Iowa. 


Randall, 


»5C 


Ketcham, 


Ray, 


Klnsey, 


Reed, Iowa. 


All Republicans. 




NAT&-11«. 


Abbott, 


Culoerson, Tg 


Lanhani, 
Lester, Ga. 


Alderson, 


Anderson, Kans. 


Dargan, 
Davidson, 


Lewis, 


Bankhead, 


Magner, 


Barnes, 


De Haven, 


Mansur, 


Bartine, 


Dockery, 


Martin, Ind. 


Barwig, 


Dunphy, 
Edmunds, 


McCarthy, 


Biggs, 


McClammy, 


Blanchard, 


Elliott, 


McClellan, 


Bland, 


ElUs, 


McCreary, 


Blount, 


Enloe, 


McRae, 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Fitch, 


Montgomery, 


Brickner, 


ilower. 


Moore, Tex. 


Brookshtre, 
Brown, J. B. 


Forney, 


Morgan, 


Fowler, 


Morrow, 


Brunner, 


Funston, 


Mutchler, 


Buchanan, Va. 


Goodniglit, 


Gates, 


Jiuckalew, 


Grimes, 


O'Ferrall, 


Bynum, 


Hatch, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Candler, Ga. 


Hayes, 


Outhwaite, 


Caruth, 


Haynes, 


Owens, Ohio. 


Catchings, 


Heard, 
Hemphill, 


Parrett, 


Chipman, 


Paynter, 


Clancy, 


Henderson, X. C, 


Peel, 


Clarke, Ala. 


Herbert, 


Perry, 


Clunie, 


Hermann, 


Pierce, 


Cobb, 


Holman, 


Quinn, 


Connell, 


Kelley, 


Reilly, 


Cooper, Ind. 


Kilgore, 


Richardson, 


Cowles, 


Lane. 


Robertson, 



Democrais, 100 ; Republicans, 9. 

So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 



The bill was read. Mr. Conger, Republican, of Iowa, chair- 
man of the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, offered 



48 



378 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



a substitute for the whole bill, 
crat, of Texas, said : 



In the debate Mr. Moore, Demo- 



Mr. Speaker, tlie wonderful spectacle is presented in this House that we are 
now considering a bill as a substitute which has been considered by no committee 
of this House; no member upon the Democratic side has ever seen it or its pro- 
visions until this morning it is printed in the Record. Yet, sir, it is a bill proposing 
to change our whole financial system as it relates to silver — a mere Republican 
caucus bill. 

Mr. Speaker, it is accompanied with a rule adopted by the majority at the 
moment of its introduction, that the previous question be considered as adopted, a 
vote to be taken to-morrow evening at 3 o'clock, without the right of any member 
to offer any amendment or to secure a vote upon the great question of the free 
coinage of silver. 

Why, I ask, is it necessary to put a gag in the mouth of the friends of free 
coinage of silver ? 

The substitute was adopted, and June 7, 1890, after the bill 
as amended by the adoption of the substitute had been read the 
third time, Mr. Bland offered the following : 

Resolved, That the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Coinage, Weights 
^nd Measures, with instructions to report back a bill for the free coinage of silrer. 

The yeas and nays were taken on this as follows : 



Abbottf 

Alderson, 

Allen, Mich. 

Allen, Miss. 

Anderson, Eansi 

Bankhead, 

Barnes, 

Bartine, 

Barwlg, 

Biggs, 

Blanchard, 

Bland, 

Blount, 

Breckinridge, Ark. 

Breckinridge, Ky. 

Brickner, 

Brookshire, 

Buchanan, Va. 

Bullock, 

Bynum, 

Candler, Ga. 

Carter, 

Caruth, 

Catchings, 

Chipman, 

Clancy, 

Clarke, Ala. 

Cobb, 

■Connell, 

Democrats, 101. 





YEAS-116. 


Cooper, Ind. 


Lane, 


Cothran, 


Lanham, 


Cowles, 


Lee, 


Crain, 


Lester, Ga. 


Crisp, 


Lester, Va. 


Culberson, Tex. 


Lewis, 


Davidson, 


Mansur, 


De Haven, 


Martin, Ind. 


Dockery, 


McClammy, 


Edmunds, 


McClellan, . 


Ellis, 


McCreary, 


Enloe, 


McRae, 


Featherston, 


Montgomery, 


Forney, 


Moore, Tex. 


Fowler, 


Morgan, 


Funston, 


Morrow, 


Gibson, 


Gates, 


Goodnight, 


O'Ferrall, 


Grimes, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Hatch, 


Outhwaite, 


Hayes, 


Owens, Ohio. 


Haynes, 


Parrett, 


Heard, 


Peel, 


Henderson, N. C. 


Penmgton, 


Herbert, 


Perkins, 


Hermann, 


Perry, 


Holman, 


Pierce, 


Kelley, 


Reilly, 


Kilgore, 


Richardsoa, 


^publicans, IS. 





Eobertson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Sayers, 

Seney, 

Shively, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Townsend, Colo. 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Turner, Kans. 

Vandever, 

Valker, Mo. 

Washington, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whltthorne, 

Wike, 

Wilkinson, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Wilson, Mo. 

Yoder. 



DKMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 



379 



Artams. 


Dingley, 
Dolliver, 


Lacey, 


Rife, 


Arnold., 


La Pollette, 


Rockwell, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Dorsey, 


Laidlaw. 


Rowell, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


Dunnell, 


Laws, 


Russell, 


Baker, 


Dunphy, 


Lind, 


Santord, 


Banks, 


Elliott, 


Lodge, 


Bawyer 


Bayne, 


Evans, 


Maish, 


Scranton, 


Beckwlth, 


Bwart, 


Mason, 


BcuU, 


Belden, 


Farquhar, 


McComaa, 


Sherman, 


Belknap, 


Pinley, 


McCord, 


Simonds, 


Bergen, 


Flick, 
Flood, 


Mccormick, 


Smith, W. Va. 


Bingham, 


McDuffle, 


Smyser, 


Boothman, 


Slower, 


McKinley. 


Snider, 


Boutelle, 


Frank, 


Miles, 


Stephenson, 


Bowden, 


Gear, 


Mofflt, 


Stivers, 


Brewer4 


Oeissenhainer, 


Moore, N. H. 


Stockbridge, 


Brosius, 


Gest, 


Morey, 


Struble, 


Brower, 


Giflord, 


Morrill, 


Sweney, 


Browne, Va. 


Greenhalge, 


Morse, 


Taylor, 111. 


Buchanan, N. J. 


Grosvenor, 


Mudd, 


Taylor, Tenn. 


Burrows, 


Hall, 


Mutchler, 


Taylor, E. B. 


Burton, 


Hansbrough, 


Nute, 


Thomas, 


Butterworth, 


Harmer, 


O'Donnell, 


Tracey, 


Caldwell, 


Haugen, 


O'Neil, Mass. 


Van Schaick. 


Gannon, 


HemphiU, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Venable, 


Caswell, 


Henderson, lU. 


Payne, 


Wade, 


C^eadle, 


Henderson, Iowa. 


Payson, 


Walker, Mass. 


Caark, Wis. 


Hill, 


Pickler, 


Wallace, N. Y. 


Cogswell, 


Hitt, 


Pugsley, 


Wickham, 


Coleman, 


Hopkins, 


QuackenbusH, 


Wiley. 


Oomstock, 


Houk, 


Quinn, 


Williams, Ohio. 
Wilson, Ky. 


Conger, 


Kennedy, 


Raines, 


Graig, 


Kerr, Iowa. 


Ray, 


Wilson, Wash, 


l>alzell. 


Ketcham, 


Reed, Iowa. 


JSI^V. 


Dargan, 


Kinsey, 


Reyburn, 


Bepuhllcans, 127 ; 


; Democrats, 13. 






So the motion to recommit with instructions wag reje 


loted. 



The question then recurred to the passage of the bill. 



The yeas and nays were ordered. 
The question was taken ; and there were — yeas 
«9 follows : 



135, nays 119, not voting 73; 



YEAS-135. 



Adams, 

Allen, Mich. 

Arnold, 

Atkinson, Pa. 

Atkinson, W. Va, 

Baker, 

Banks, 

Bayne, 

Beckwlth, 

Belden, 

Belknap, 

Bergen, 

Bingham, 

Boothman, 

Boutelle, 

Bowden, 

Brewer, 

Brosius, 

Brower, 

Browne, Va,, 

Buchanan, N. J. 

Burrows, 

Burton, 

Butterworth, 

Caldwell, 

Cannon, 

Caswell, 

Cheadle, 

tTlark, Wis- 

Cogswell, 

Coleman, 

Cometock, 

Conger, 

(tionnell. 

All Republicans. 



Craig, 

Dalzell, 

De Haven, 

Dingley, 

Dolliver, 

Dorsey, 

Dunnell, 

Evans** 

Ewart, 

Farquhar, 

Feathers ton, 

Pinley, 

Flick, 

Flood, 

Prank, 

Punston, 

Gear, 

Gest, 

GlSCord, 

Greenhalge, 

Grosvenor, 

HaU. 

Hansbrough, 

Harmer, 

Haugen, 

Henderson, 111. 

Henderson, Iowa, 

Hermann, 

Hill, 

Hitt, 

Hopkins, 

Houk, 

Kennedy, 

Kerr, Iowa, 



Ketcham, 

Kinsey, 

Lacey, 

La Pollette, 

Laidlaw, 

Laws, 

Lind, 

Lodge, 

Mason, 

McComas, 

McCord, 

McCormlck, 

McDuffle, 

McKinley. 

Miles, 

Moffitt, 

Moore, N. H., 

Morey, 

Morrill, 

Morrow, 

Morse, 

Mudd, 

Nute, 

O'Donnell, 

O'Neill, Pa. 

Pay^e, 

Payson, 

Perkins, 

Pickler, 

Pugsley, 

Quackenbuah, 

Raines, 

Ray, 

Ree^, Iowa, 



Reybnm, 

Rife, 

Rowell, 

Russell, 

Santord, 

Sawyer, 

Scranton, 

Scull, 

Sherman, 

Simonds, 

Smith, W. Va. 

Smyser, 

Snider, 

Stephenson, 

Stivers, 

Stockbridge, 

Struble, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, 111., 

Taylor, Tenn,, 

Taylor, E. B. 

Thomas, 

Vandever, 

Van Schaick, 

Wade, 

Walker, Mass. 

Turner, N. Y. 

Wickham, 

Williams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 

fjrdley. 



:380 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



NATS— U9. 



Abbott, 

Alderson, 

Allen, Miss. 

Anderson, Kans. 

Bankhead, 

Barnes, 

Bartine, 

Barwlg, 

Biggs, 

Blanchard, 

Bland, 

Blount, 

Breckim-idge, Ark. 

IBreckinridge, Ky. 

Brickner, 

Brookshire, 

Jiuctianan, Va. 

Bullock, 

Bynum, 

handler, Ga. 

Carter, 

Carutti, 

Catchings, 

Chipmaa, 

Clancy, 

Clarke, Ala, 

Cobb, 

Cooper, Ind. 

Cotliran, 

Cowles, 

Democrats, 113 ; 



Grain, 
Crisp, 

Culberson, Tea:. 
Dargan, 
Davidson, 
Dockery, 
Dunphy, 
Edmunds, 
Elliott, 
EDis, 
Enloe, 
Flower, 
Forney, 
Fov/ler, 
oreissenhainer, 
Gibson, 
Goodnight, 
Grimes, 
Hatch, 
Hayes, 
Haynes, 
Heard, 

Henderson, N. C. 
Herbert, 
Holman, 
Kelley, 
Kilgore, 
Lane, 
Lanham, 
Lee, 
Republicans, 7. 



Lester, Oa. 

Lester, Va. 

Lewis, 

Maish, 

Mansur, 

Martin, Ind. 

McClammy, 

McClellan, 

McCreary, 

McRae, 

Montgomery, 

Moore, Tex. 

Morgan, 

Mutchler, 

Oates, 

O'Ferrall, 

O'Neall, Ind. 

O'Neil, Mass. 

Outhwaite, 

Owens, Ohio 

Parrett, 

Peel, 

Penington, 

Perry, 

Pierce, 

Quinn, 

Reilly, 

Richardson, 

Robertson, 

Rockwell 



Rogers, 
Rowland, 

Sayers, 

Seney, 

Shively, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Townsend, CoL 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Turner, Kans. 

Venable, 

Walker, Mo. 

Washington, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whitthorne, 

Wike, 

Wiley, 

Wilkinson, 

Williams, ni. 

Wilson, Mo. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Yoder, 



So the bill was sent to the Senate. While the bill was under 
■consideration in the Senate the following amendment was 
offered : To strike out the first section and insert : 

" That from and after the date of the passage of this act the unit of value in 
the United States shall be the dollar, and the same may be coined of 412^ grains 
of standard silver or of 25.8 grains of standard gold, and the said coins shall be 
legal tender for all debts, public and private. 

" That hereafter any owner of silver or gold bullion may deposit the same in 
any mint of the United States to be formed into standard dollars or bars for hia 
Tjenefit and without charge, but U shall be lawful to refuse any deposit of less 
value than $100, or any bullion so base as to be unsuitable for the operations of 
the mint." 

That is the free coinage amendment. 

Senator Blair, Republican, offered this to be added to the 
amendment : 



" Nor shall the amount of silver coined and issued from the mints of the United 
States be more than $5,000,000 for each calendar month." 

The ayes and noes were taken on the Blair amendment to 
restrict coinage, and stood : 



Paddock, 
Spooner, 
Washburn. 







YEAS-12. 


Allen, 
Blair, 
Casey, 


Chandler, 

Dawes, 

Edmunds, 


Frye, 
Hale, 
McPherson, 


Republicans, U : 


Democrats, L 


NAYS-46. 


Aklrlch, 

Allison, 

Bate, 

Berry, 

Blodgett, 


Daniel, 

Eustls, 
George, 
Gibson, 
Gorman, 


Mitchell, 

Moody, 

Morgan, 

Morrill, 

Payne, 



Sawyer, 

Stewart. 

Stockbridge, 

Teller, 

Turple, 



DEMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 



381 



Call, 


Harris, 


Pierce, 


Vance, 


^Cameron, 


Hearst, 


Plumb, 


Vest, 


^Carlisle, 


Hiscock, 


Power. 


Voorhees, 


Cockrell, 


Ingalls, 


Pugh, 


Walthall, 


Coke. 


Jones, Ark. 


Ransom, 


Wolcott. 


Colquitt, 


Jones, Nev. 


Reagan, 




Cullom, 


Kenna, 


Sanders, 




Democrats, 27 ; 


; Republicans, 19. 







So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The yeas and nays were then taken on the free coinage 
amendment, and stood: 







YEAS— 43. 




Bate. 


Daniel, 


Manderson, 


Sanders, 


Berry, 


Eustis. 


Mitchell, 


Squire, 


Blair, 


George, 


Moody, 


Stewart, 


Blodgett, 


Gibson, 


Morgan, 


Teller, 


Butler, 


Gorman, 


Paddock, 


Turpie, 


Call, 


Harris, 


Payne, 


Vance, 


Cameron, 


Hearst, 


Plumb, 


Vest, 


Carlisle, 


Ingalls, 


Power, 


Voorhees, 


CockreU, 


Jones, Ark. 


Pugh, 


Walthall, 


Coke, 


Jones, Nev. 


Ransom, 


Wolcott, 


Colquitt, 


Kenna, 


Reagan, 




Democrats, 28 ; 


Republicans, 15. 


NAYS-2i. 




Aldrich, 


Dawes, 


Hawley, 


Sawyer, 


Allen, 


Edmunds, 


Hiscock, 


Sherman, 


Allison, 


Evarts, 


Hoar, 


Spooner, 


Casey, 


Frye, 


McPherson, 


Stockbridge, 


Chandler, 


Gray, 


Morrill, 


Washburn. 


Cullom, 


Hale, 


Pierce, 


Wilson, Md. 



Republicans, 21 ; Democrats, 3. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Upon the announcement of the result there were manifestations of applause 
in the galleries. 

Still trying to restrict the coinage, Senator Chandler, Re- 
publican, of New Hampshire, proposed the following: 

" No gold or silver bullion shall be received by the Treasury Department under 
this act except such as shall be shown to be the product of mines within the United 
States." 

A motion was made to lay this on the table. The yeas and 
nays stood on this motion: 



Squire, 

Stewart, 

Teller, 

Turpie, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

Walthall, 

Wolcott. 



Sawyer. 
Spooner, 
Stockbridge, 
Washburn. 







YEAS-42. 


Allen, 


Daniel, 


Mitchell, 


Bate, 


Eustis, 


Moody, 


Berry, 


George, 


Morgan, 


Blodgett, 


Gorman, 


Pasco, 


Butler 


Gray, 


Payne, 


Call, 


Harris, 


Plumb, 


Cameron, 


Hearst, 


Power, 


Cockrell, 


Ingalls, 


Pugh, 


Coke, 


Jones, Ark. 


Ransom, 


Colquitt, 


Jones, Nev. 


Reagan, 
Sanders, 


Cullom, 


Kenna, 


Democrats, 29 ; 


Republicans, 13. 


NAYS-19. 


Aldrich, 


Edmunds, 


Hoar, 


Blair. 


Evarts, 


Morrill, 


Casey, 


Frye, 


Paddock, 


Chandler, 


Hale, 


Pierce, 


Dawes, 


Hiscock, 


Piatt, 


All Republicans 







So the amendment was laid on the tabic. 



382 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



During the process of amendment a motion was made to 
strike out the provision that made paper certificates legal- tender, 
as follows : 

The Vice-President. The pending question is on the first amendment 
reported by the Committee on Finance, which will be stated. 

The Chief Clerk. In section 2, on page 2, line 8, after the word '' notes," 
where it occurs the second time in the ime, to strike out " shall be a legal-tender 
in payment of all debts, public and private, and ;" so as to read : 

"And such Treasury notes shall be receivable for customs, taxes, and all pub- 
lic dues, and when so received may be reissued ; and such notes when held by auj 
national banking association may be counted as a part of its lawful reserve" 

Some Senators who were earnestly in favor of free and un- 
limited coinage, and who voted for it in the bill, thought the 
legal-tender provision a dangerous experiment and of at least 
doubtful constitutionality, as it related to a species of circulating 
medium never before made legal -tender and never pronounced 
constitutional by the Supreme Court. 

On this motion the ayes and noes stood : 



MorrUl, 
Piatt. 



Sherman, 

Spooner, 

Stewart, 

Stockbridge, 

Teller, 

Turpie, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

Walthall, 

Washbm-n, 

WolcoU, 



So the amendment was rejected. 

The consequence of the retention of this legal-tender pro- 
vision was, that the vote on the passage of the bill did not show 
the full Democratic strength of free coinage, some of its sup- 

Eorters refraining from voting, and some voting against the bill 
ecause of the legal-tender provision. That vote stood*. 







YEAS-U. 


Aldrich, 


Chandler, 


Hale, 


Blair, 


Frye, 


Harris. 


Blodgett, 


Gibson, 


Hoar, 


Carlisle, 


Gray, 


McPherson, 


Republicans 8, 


Democrats 6. 


NAYS-50. 


Allen, 


Daniel, 


Mitchell, 


Allison, 


Dolph, 


Moody, 


Barbour, 


Eustis, 


Morgan, 


Bate, 


Evarts, 


Paddock, 


Berry, 


George, 


Pasco, 


Butler, 


Gorman, 


Payne, 


Call, 


Hearst, 


Pierce, 


Cameron, 


Higgins, 


Plumb, 


Casey, 


Hiscock, 


Power, 


Cockrell, 


Ingalls, 


Ransom, 


Coke, 


Jones, Ark, 


Reagan, 


Colquitt, 


Jones, Nev, 


•Sanders, 


Cullom, 


Kenna, 


Sawyer, 


Repblicans 26 


, Democrats 24. 





YEAS— 42 



Bate, 


George, 


Berry, 


Gorman, 


Blodgett, 


Harris, 


Butler, 


Hearst, 


<:!all, 


Ingalls, 


Cameron, 


Jones, Ark. 


(Cockrell, 


Jones, Nev. 


Coke, 


Kenna, 


Colquitt, 


Manderson, 


Daniel, 


Mitchell, 


Eustis, 


Moody, 


Democrats, 27 ; 


Republicans, 15. 



Morgan, 

Paddock, 

Pasco, 

Payne, 

Pierce, 

Plumb, 

Power, 

Pugh, 

Ransom, 

Reagan, 

Sanders, 



Squire, 
Stewart, 

Teller, 

Turuie, 

Vance, 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

WalthaU, 

Wolcott. 



DEMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 



383 



Aldrich, 


Dawes, 


Allen. 


Edmunds, 


Allison. 


Evarts, 


Blair. 


Frye, 


Casey, 


Gray, 


Chandler, 


Hale. 


Cullom, 


Hawley, 



rs-35. 




Hlscock, 


Spooner. 


Hoar, 


Stockbridge, 


McPherson, 


Washburn, 


Morrill, 


Wilson, Md. 


Piatt, 




Sawyer, 
Shenuan, 







Republicans, 33 ; Denaocrats, 3. 

So the bill was passed. 

Mr. Plumb. I move to amend the title so as to read : " A bill to provide for 
the free coinage of gold and silver bullion, and for other purposes." 

The Vice-President. The amendment to the title will be considered as 
agreed to, if there be no objection. The Chair hears none. 

So this free coinage bill was sent to the House, where its 
tribulations began and terminated — free coinage terminating 
with them. 

When the bill was sent to the House that body was in Com- 
mittee of the Whole, Mr. Allen, of Michigan, in the chair. The 
message from the Senate having been received, Mr. Bland moved 
that the Committee rise and proceed to consider the silver bill. 
There being no ayes and noes in the Committee of the Whole, a 
rising vote was taken, which stood : Ayes 79 ; noes 87. Tellers 
were demanded by Mr. Bland and Mr. Springer, and the result 
was : Ayes 94 ; noes 105. So the Committee refused to rise. 

The bill then went on the Speaker's table and was by the 
Speaker referred to the Committee on Coinage, Weights and 
Measures. 

June 19 the Democrats, led by Messrs. Mills, Breckinridge 
and Springer, objected to the approval of the journal which 
showed this reference, on the ground that the reference was 
wrong. Mr. McKinley moved its approval and demanded the 
previous question. The ayes and noes were taken and showed : 
Ayes 105, all Republicans ; noes 117, of whom 112 were Demo- 
crats and 5 Republicans. So the previous question was refused. 

Mr. Mills then moved to correct the Journal by striking out 
the part that referred to the reference ; Mr. Cannon, Republican, 
of Illinois, moved to lay this on the table, which motion was 
lost. 

Then the previous question was ordered on the motion of 
Mr. Mills, which was adopted by a vote of 121 ayes, of whom 
116 were Democrats, to 116 noes, one ofwhom was a Democrat. 

Mr. Mills then moved to approve the Journal as corrected ; 
the House adjourned, and June 20 the ayes and noes were taken 
on this motion. The vote stood : Ayes 132, noes 130. Of the 
ayes 125 were Democrats ; of the noes one was a Democrat. 

So the Journal was approved as amended. % 

June 21 the Speaker, in open House, again referred the bill 
to the same Committee, having made the first reference without 
announcement to the House. From his decision upon this point 
Mr. Bland appealed. Mr. McKinley moved to lay the appeal on 
the table. The ayes and noes were taken and stood : Ayes 144, 



384 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



of whom 131 were Republicans and 13 were Democrats ; noes^ 
117, of whom 108 were Democrats and 9 were Republicans. 

So the appeal was laid on the table, and the bill went to the 
Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. 

June 24 the Committee on Rules reported a resolution pro- 
viding for the immediate consideration of the bill as it came 
from the Senate, and that at 2 o'clock the next day the previous 
question be considered as ordered. 

Mr. Conger submitted the report of the Committee, which 
recommended non-concurrence in all the Senate amendments, 
and asked for a conference committee on the disagreeing vote of 
the two Houses. 

June 25, when the bill was up for action under the resolu- 
tion, Mr. Bland moved to concur in the Senate amendments. 
Mr. Springer demanded a separate vote on the amendments, 
which was had. This brought the House to a direct vote on the 
question of free coinage on the first amendment. 

The yeas and nays were taken as follows : 



Post, 

Remy, 

Richardson, 

Robertson, 

Rowland, 

Sayers, 

Shirely, 

SWnner. 

Smlth, 111. 

Springer, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Townsend, Col. 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Turner, Kans. 

Venable, 

Wade, 

Washington, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whiting, 

Whitthorne, 

Wilkinson, 

Williams, 111. 

Williams, Ohio.. 

Wilson, Mo. 

Wilson, W. V&. 



Sanford, 

Sawyer, 

Scranton, 

Scull, 

Sherman, 

Slmonds, 

Smith, W. Va. 

Smyser, 

Snider, 

Splnola, 

Spooner, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart, Vt., 



Abbott, 


Cowles, 


Lane, 


Alderson, 


Grain, 


Lanham, 


Allen, Miss. 


Crisp, 


Laws, 


Anderson, Kans. 


Culberson, Tex, 


Lee, 


Anderson, Miss. 


Cummings, 


Lester, Ga. 


Bankhead, 


Davidson, 


Lester, Va. 


Barnes, 


De Haven, 


Lewis, 


Bartlne, 


Dockery, 


Magner, 


Blanchard, 


Dorsey, 


Mansur, 


Bland, 


Edmunds, 


Martin, Ind. 


Blount, 


Elliott, 


McClammy, 


Boatner, 


Ellis, 


Mcaellan, 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Enloe, 


McCreary, 


Breckinridge, Ky. 


Featherston, 


McMilim, 


Brickner, 


Fithian, 


McRae, 


Brookshire, 


Forman, 


Mills, 


Brown, J. B. 


Fowler, 


Montgomery, 


Brunner, 


Funston, 


Moore, Tex. 


Buchanan, Va. 


Gibson, 


Morrill, 


Bullock, 


Gifford, 


Morrow, 


Bunn, 


Goodnight, 


Norton, 


Bynum, 


Grimes, 


Gates, 


Candler, Ga. 


Hare, 


O'Ferrall, 


Carlton, 


Hatch, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Carter, 


Haynes, 


Owen, Ind. 


Caruth, 


Heard, 


Owens, Ohio 


Catchings, 


Hemphill, 


Parrett, 


Chipman, 


Henderson, N. C. Paynter, 


Clarke, Ala, 


Herbert, 


Peel, 


Clements, 


Hermann, 


Penlngton, 


Cobb, 


Holman, 


Perkins, 


Connell, 


Kelley, 


Perry, 


Cooper, Ind. 


Kerr, Pa. 


Peters, 


Cothran, 


Kilgore, 


Pierce, 
NAYS-152. 


Adams, 


Craig, 


La Follette, 


Allen, Mich. 


Culbertson, Pa. 


Laidlaw, 


Andrew, 


Cutcheon, 


Lansing, 


Arnold, 


Dargan, 


Lehlbach, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Darlington, 


Lind, 


Baker, 


De Lana, 


Lodge, 


Banks, 


Dingley, 


Maish, 


Bayne, 


Dolliver, 


Mason, 


Beckwith, 


Dunnell, 


McAdoo, 


Belden, 


Dunphy, 


McComas, 


Belknap, 


Evans, 


McCord, 


Bergen, 


Farquhar, 


McDume, 


Bingham, 


Finley, 


McKenna, 



DEMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 



385 



Bliss, 


Flick. 


McKinley, 


Boothman, 


Flood, 


Miles, 


Boutelle, 


Flower, 


MiUikin, 


Bowden, 


Frank, 


Moffltt, 


Brewer, 


Gear, 


Moore, N. H., 


Brosius, 


Gelssenhainer, 


Morey, 


Brower, 


Gest, 


Morse, 


Browne, Va,, 


Greenhalge, 


Mudd, 


Buckalew, 


Grout, 


Mutchler, 


Burrows, 


HaU. 


Niedrtnghaus, 


Burton, 


Hansbrough, 


O'Donnell, 


Butterworth, 


Harmer, 


O'Neil, Mass. 


Caldwell, 


Haugen, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Campbell, 


Henderson, 111. 


Payne, 


Candler. Mass. 


Henderson, Iowa, 


Pay son. 


Cannon, 


Hill, 


Pugsley, 


Caswell, 


Hitt, 


Quackenbush, 


Cneadle, 


Hopkins, 


Quinn, 


Cheatham, 


Houk, 


Raines, 


Clancy, 


Kennedy, 


Reed, Iowa, 


Cogswell, 


Kerr, Iowa, 


Reybnrn, 
Rife, 


Coleman, 


Ketcham, 


Cometock, 


Kinsey, 


Rowell, 


Conger, 


Knapp, 


Rusk, 


Covert, 


Lacey, 


Russell, 



Stivers, 

Stockbridge, 

Struble, 

Stump, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, 111., 

Taylor, Tenn., 

Taylor, E. B. 

Thomas, 

Townsend, Pa., 

Tracey, 

Turner, N. Y. 

Vandever, 

Van Schaick, 

Vaux, 

Waddill, 

Wallace, Mass. 

Wallace, N. Y. 

Watson, 

Wiley, 

Willcox, 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 

Yardley. 



So the motion to concur was rejected. 



Democrats, 112 ; Republicans, 23. Democrats, 22 ; Bepub- 
licans, 130. 

Thus the two parties interpreted their platforms of 1888. 

The conference committee was appointed and consisted of 
Mr. Conger, Iowa; Mr. Walker, Mass.; Mr. Bland, Mo., on the 
part of the House ; Mr. Sherman, Ohio ; Mr. Jones, Nevada, 
and Mr. Harris, Tennessee, on the part of the Senate. 

These gentlemen went into conference and concocted a bill 
which the Republican conferees reported to the two Houses, the 
Democratic conferees dissenting. Here is the bastard, the child 
of neither House of Congress, but begotten, conceived and bor 
in conference : 

An ACT directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of Treasury notes 
thereon, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by t?ie Senate and Hou%e of Representatims of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled^ That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby directed 
to purchase, from time to time, silver bullion to the aggregate amount of four 
million five hundred thousand ounces, or so much thereof as may be offered in 
each month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding one dollar for three hundred 
and seventy-one and twenty-five hundredths, grains of pure silver, and to issue in 
payment for such purchases of silver bullion Treasury notes of the United States 
to be prepared by the Secretary of the Treasury, in such form and of such denomi- 
nations, not less than one dollar nor more than one thousand dollars, as he may 
prescribe, and a sum sufficient to carry into effect the provisions of this act is 
hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated 

Sec. 2. That the Treasury notes issued in accordance with the provisions of 
this act shall be redeemable on demand, in coin, at the Treasury of the United 
States, or at the office of any assistant treasurer of the United States, and when so 
redeemed may be reissued ; but no greater or less amount of such notes shall be 
outstanding at any time than the cost of the silver bullion and the standard silver 
dollars coined therefrom,then held in the Treasury purchased by such notes; and such 
Treasury notes shall be a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, 

49 



386 DKMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract, and shall be receivable 
for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and when so received may be reissued ; and 
such notes, when held by any national banking association, may be counted as a 
part of its lawful reserve. That upon demand of the holder of any of the Treas- 
ury notes herein provided for the Secretary of the Treasury shall, under such reg- 
ulations as he may prescribe, redeem such notes in gold or silver coin, at his dis- 
cretion, it being the established policy of the United States to maintain the two 
metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio, or such ratio as 
may be provided by law. 

Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury shall each month coin two million 
ounces of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act into stand- 
ard silver dollars until the first day of July eighteen hundred and ninety-one, and 
after that time he shall coin of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of 
this act as much as may be necessary to provide for the redemption of the Treasury 
notes herein provided for, and any gain or seigniorage arising from such coinage 
shall be accounted for and paid into the Treasury. 

Sec. 4. That the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of this act shall 
be subject to the requirements of existing law and the regulations of the mint 
service governing the methods of determining the amount of pure silver contained, 
iind the amount of charges or deductions, if any, to be made. 

Sec. 5. That so much of the act of February twenty-eighth, eighteen hundred 
and seventy-eight, entitled *'An act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver 
dollar and to restore its legal-tender character," as requires the monthly purchase 
and coinage of the same into silver dollars of not less than two million dollars, nor 
more than four million dollars worth of silver bullion, is hereby repealed. 

Sec. 6. That upon the passage of this act the balances standing with the 
Treasurer of the United States to the respective credits of national banks for 
deposits made to redeem the circulating notes of such banks, and all deposits 
thereafter received for like purpose, shall be covered into the Treasury as a miscel- 
laneous receipt, and the Treasury of the United States shall redeem from the gen- 
eral cash in the Treasury the circulating notes of said banks which may coi&e into 
his possession subject to redemption ; and upon the certificate of the Comptroller 
of the Currency that such notes have been received by him and that they have 
been destroyed and that no new notes will be issued in their place, reimbursement 
of their amount shall be made to the Treasurer under such regulations as the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury may prescribe, from an appropriation, hereby created, to be 
known as the National bank-note redemption account, but the provisions of this 
act shall not apply to the deposits received under section three of the act of June 
twentieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-four, requiring every National bank to 
keep in lawful money with the Treasurer of the United States a sum equal to five 
percentum of its circulation, to be held and used for the redemption of its circulat- 
ing notes ; and the balance remaining of the deposits so covered shall, at the close of 
each month, be reported on the monthly public debt statement as debt of the 
United States bearing no interest: 

" Sec 7. This act shall take effect thirty days from and after its passage." 

Approved, July 14, 1890. 

In the Senate, July 10, the report of the conference was 
agreed to as follows: 



DEMONETIZATION OF SII.VER. 



387 







YEAS-39. 


Aldrich, 


Edmunds, 


McMillan, 


Allen, 


Evarts, 


Manderson, 


Allison, 


Farwell, 


Mitchell, 


Blair, 


Frye, 


Moody, 


Casey, 


Hawley, 


Pettigrew, 


Cullom, 


Higgins, 


Pierce, 


Davis, 


Hiscock, 


Piatt, 


Dawes, 


Hoar, 


Plumb, 


Dixon, 


Ingalls, 


Power, 


Dolph, 


Jones, Nev. 


Quay, 


All Republicans. 




NAYS-36. 


Barbour, 


Colquitt, 


Jones, Ark. 


Bate, 


Daniel, 


Kenna, 


Blackburn, 


Faulkner, 


McPherson, 


Call, 


Gibson, 


Pasco, 


Carlisle, 


Gorman, 


Pugh, 


Cockrell, 


Hampton, 


Bansom, 


Coke, 


Harris, 


Reagan, 


All Democrats. 







Sanders, 

Sawyer, 

Sherman, 

Spooner, 

Squire, 

Stewart, 

Stockbridge, 

Washburn, 

Wolcott. 



Turpie, 

Vance. 

Vest, 

Voorhees, 

WalthalL 



In the House the report was agreed to July 12, by the fol- 
lowing vote: 



Adams, 
Allen, Mich. 
Anderson, Kans. 
Atkinson, Pa. 
Atkinson, W. Va. 
Baker, 



Bartine, 

Bayne, 

Beckwith, 

Belknap, 

Bergen, 

Bliss, 

Bowden, 

Brewer, 

Brosius, 

Brower, 

Buchanan, N. J. 

Burton, 

Caldwell, 

Cannon. 

Carter, ^ 

Caswell, 

Cheadle, 

Cogswell, 

Coleman, 

Com stock. 

Conger, 

Townsend, Pa. 

A^andever, 

Van Schaick, 

All Republicans. 

Abbott, 

Allen, Miss. 

Anderson, Miss. 

Bankhead- 

Earwig, 

Bland, 

Blount, 

Boatner, 

Breckinridge, Ark. 

Breckinridge, Ky. 

Brickner, 

Brookshire, 

Brunner, 

Buchanan, Va. 

Bullock, 

Bynura, 

Candler, Ga. 

Carlton, 

Catchings, 

Chipman, 

Clancy, 

Clunie, 

Cooper, Ind. 

All Democrats. 



Connell, 

Cooper. Ohio, 

Cutcheon, 

Dalzell, 

Darlington, 

Dingley, 

DoUiver, 

Dorsey, 

Dunnell, 

Farquhar, 

Featherston, 

Finley, 

Flick, 

Flood, 

Frank, 

Funston, 

Gear, 

Gest, 

Gifford, 

Grosvenor, 

Haugen, 

Henderson, 111. 

Henderson, Iowa. 

Hermann, 

Hill, 

Hitt, 

Hopkins, 

Houk, 

Walker, Mass. 

Wallace, N. Y. 

Williams, Ohio. 



Cothran, 

Crain, 

Crisp, 

Culberson, Tex. 

Davidson, 

Dibble, 

Dockery, 

Dunphy, 

Elliott, 

Ellis, 

Enloe, 

Foreman, 

Forney, 

Goodnight, 

Hayes, 

Heard, 

Hemphill, 

Henderson, N. C. 

Holman, 

Hooker, 

Kerr, Pa. 

Lanham, 

Lawler, 



YEAS— 122. 
Kelley, 
Kennedy, 
Ketcham, 
Kinsey, 
Lacey, 
La FoUette, 
Laidlaw, 
Laws, 
Lehlbach, 
McComas, 
McCord, 
McCormick, 
McDuffle, 
McKenna, 
Mofflt, 
Morey, 
Morrill, 
Morrow, 
Morse, 
Mudd, 

Neidringhaus, 
O'Neill, Pa. 
Osborne, 
Owen, Ind. 
Payne, 
Pays on, 
Perkins, 
Peters, 
Wilson, Ky. 
Wilson, Wash. 
Wright, 

NAYS— 90. 

Lester, Va. 

Lewis, 

Maish, 

Martin, Ind. 

Martin, Tex. 

McAdoo, 

McClammy, 

McClellan, 

McCreary, 

McMillan, 

McRae, 

Mutchler, 

Norton, 

Oates, 

O'Neall, Ind. 

O'Neil, Mass. 

Owens, Ohio. 

Parrett, 

Pavnter, 

Peel, 

Penington, 

Pierce, 

Price, 



Pickler, 

Post, 

Quackenbush, 

Raines, 

Ray, 

Reed, Iowa. 

Reybum, 

Rife, 

Rockwell, 

Row ell, 

Russell, 

Scull, 

Simonds, 

Smith, ni. 

Smith, W. Va. 

Snider, 

Spooner, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart, Vt. 

Stivers, 

Stockbridge, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, E. B. 

Taylor, 111. 

Taylor, J. D. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, 

Townsend, Colo. 

Yardley 



Quinn, 

Reilly, 

Robertson, 

Rogers, 

Rusk, 

Sayers, 

Shively, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stone, Mo. 

Tillman, 

Tracey, 

V en able, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whitthorne, 

Wike, 

Willcox, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Yodei\ 



So the bill passed and was approved by the President July 14. 



388 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

The Character of the Bill and How It Was Framed. 

The conference bill was ably discussed in both Houses, and 
the speeches made there should be read by those who wish to 
have a clear understanding of its provisions. 

Hon. Richard P. Bland, who has at all times and under all 
circumstances been the steadfast friend of silver ,*and who prob- 
ably knows more about silver legislation than any other man in 
Congress, was the only Democrat on the conference from the 
House. 

Speaking of the conference report, he said : 

Mr. Speaker : I do not know that I can begin better than to answer the gentle- 
man who has just taken his seat. I concur in his statement, when he hopes the 
next House of Representatives will be a free coinage House ; but I want to remind 
my friend that if it is so it must come from those who advocate free coinage and 
stand by their colors. It will not come from the advocacy of the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Conger] who has during this whole session opposed free coinage, and 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Cutcheon], and the Republican party in its 
organization, in this House by gag rule, unprecedented maneuvers, and caucuses, 
have fought down and stifled free coinage in this House. It will not come from 
your party, but for my part I say, in God's name let it come from your party or any 
other, but if it comes at all it will come from that party on account of the efforts 
of men here who have stood firm to the flag of free coinage, and not surrendered 
at the beck of Wall street and the gold bugs. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa says this bill is the result of a free 
and fair conference. I deny it. We had but one meeting of the conference com- 
mittee in which all the conferees were represented. That was the meeting 
appointed for last Thursday. We were to have another meeting of these conferees, 
but before the date of that meeting arrived I was notified that my presence was no 
longer needed, and that when my services were required I would be notified. In 
the mean time secret meetings or caucuses were held by the Republican members 
of that conference, and this bill was concocted and prepared by them ; and I never 
received a notice to attend another meeting of this conference until this bill was 
agreed to and the report ready to be signed ; and I was simply asked whether I 
agreed to it or not. That is all I had to do with the conference. Is that a free, a 
full, and a fair conference ? 

*********** 

I say the financial history of this country is that we never have coined the 
two metals at an absolute par, and now this bill undertakes to incorporate into a 
statute the false doctrines of the Secretary of the Treasury and the gold men that 
we should not use silver or pay it out unless at par with gold, a thing which the 
bimetallists of this country have contended against from the beginning, a propos- 
ition that I have never assented to and that no bimetallist, so far as I know, has 
ever assented to. Rulings and constructions of the Secretary of the Treasury are 
ingrafted into this bill to fix us on the gold basis and the gold standard. 

****** * * * * * 

Mr. Speaker, let us examine this bill for a moment. It provides : 

That the Secretary of the Treasury is herebv directed to purchase from time to 
time silver bullion to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof 
as may be offered, in each month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding, etc. 



DEMONETIZATION OF SILVER. SS'J 

It is a singular fact, Mr. Speaker, that there is no bill that can be agreed to as 
a party measure upon the silver question that has not a tang to it. This bill reads 
all right until you come to that part of it which says : " So much thereof as may 
be offered in each month at the market price thereof." Why, the pill that we are 
to swallow is like a sugar-coated quinine pill. On the first reading it means that 
the Secretary of the Treasury is to purchase 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion per 
month, but when we come to ruminate it, when we roll it around in our mouths a 
feAv times, we begin to taste the bitter tang which is found in these words : " or 
so much thereof as may be offered in each month at the market price thereof." 
*********** 

I am indebted to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Conger] for his frankness, 
because he does not differ with me in his construction of this clause. He admits 
that it is put there for a purpose and that purpose is identical with the purpose 
which appeared in the original Windom bill. This provision was that the Secre- 
tary should purchase silver bullion from month to month at its market price, to be 
fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the right on his part to suspend pur- 
chase when in his opinion there was a " corner" on silver. That has been stricken 
out. It was too plain. Nobody could be deceived by a plain honest proposition of 
that sort. Nobody could be deceived by it and there could be no difference of 
opinion about it. While the gold party could stand upon it, the silver party could 
not do so without exposing themselves to public reprobation and contempt. So, 
instead of that, we have this quiet, stealthy provision engrafted upon this bill which 
has the same force and effect, which provides that whenever the Secretary of the 
Treasury believes that the market is being over-stimulated by speculators, he may 
declare that he cannot receive any more bullion because he cannot purchase it at 
its market price. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Conger] admits that construc- 
tion and the provision does not admit of any other construction, so that practically 
the amount of money that is to go into circulation under this bill, or the amount 
of bullion that is to oe purchased, is to be at the discretion of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, and when the gentleman from Iowa says that fifty, or sixty, or seventy 
millions will go into circulation, he omits to say that it all depends upon whether 
or not the Secretary of the Treasury in his construction of the law Avill permit that 
money to go into circulation or not. The interpretation of the law is left open for 
the purpose of regulatingthe amount of silver that may be purchased from month, 
to month. 

*********** 

These purchases will go on as the silver men want them to go on, and claim 
they ought to go on, until after the next Presidential election ; for I do not think 
any party in power could stand against public sentiment and refuse to execute this 
law in the spirit in which it ought to be executed — first, for the purpose of getting 
more money into circulation in accordance with the popular demand, and secondly, 
to prevent any uprising of the friends of silver in this country to denounce the 
administration in the execution of the law, while the necessities of the Presidential 
election are being tided over. But when that election has passed and the next 
President of the Unitea States has been chosen, whether he be Democratic or 
Republican, or whatever he may be, if he is a " gold-bug " you will find that the 
purchases will be made to suit Wall street and nobody else. Now mark that 
prediction. 

Numerous threats were made by the Republicans that Pres- 



390 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

ident Harrison would veto any free coinage measure that might 
pass. 

To these Mr. Bland replied : 

I know gentlemen may say that free coinage will come in the next Congress.. 
I know that they may say that this will be a great question at the coming elections^ 
and that the people will pass upon it. That is true ; but when the bill of 1878 
passed, it passed the House a purely free-coinage bill, and went to the Senate, 
where is was amended so as to provide for the purchase of two millions' worth and 
not exceeding four millions of silver bullion every month. It was returned to us 
in the shape of a compromise measure ; and what was the position of every free 
coinage advocate on the floor of the House at that time ? What was the position 
in which they were placed ? They said we will take this bill as the very best we 
can do now. We were told that the President would veto the bill. I fell into line 
and got into the trap set for us, and I am sorry, for I have had some experience 
since then. But it was said, and we believed it, that it could not pass the Senate 
in any other shape than as they returned it to us. 

Now, the Senate comes and say this bill can not pass the House in any other 
shape. I say that I fell into that trap once ; I fell into it in 1878, and the bill 
became a law over the veto of the President. But every free-coij;iage man in the 
House at that time was confident that the next President of the United States 
would sign a free-coinage bill. That was our hope and our honest belief. That 
bill passed the House by a vote of three-fourths of its members, and it passed the 
Senate by a vote of two-thirds of that body. There was excitement in the country 
that amounted almoM to a revolution, demanding free coinage of silver, and no' 
one supposed but that free coinage Avas in sight, and all that was necessary was an 
appeal to the people. And yet, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the pressure exerted 
by the popular mind on Congress at that time, and upon the President, there has 
never been a day from that time to the present when this House would pass a 
free-coinage bill. 

Republiesiii I>enioiietizatioii in 1873. 

Hon. T. C. McRae, of Arkansas, speaking in the House July 
12, after calling attention to the fact that Senator Sherman had 
a few days before confessed in the Senate that the demonetiza- 
tion act of 1873 was deliberately planned and executed, said, re- 
ferring to Senator Sherman: 

He wants it understood that he knew all about it. He wants the party to take 
credit for the act. The bill was drawn to conceal the intention from the few 
Democrats then in Congress. They struck down silver when it was at a premium 
and because it was at a premium ; and now they have the audacity to declare that 
there was no mistake about it, that they intended to do it, that they were respon- 
sible for the legislation. 

This bold confession is made at the other end of this Capitol by this distin- 
guished Senator and contraction ist at the very moment when his party friends 
here are asking for the passage of a bill that makes it possible for a Republican 
Secretary to accomplish the same result. 
* * ******** * 

Give me your attention while I read a paragraph from the speech made by 



DEMONETIZATION OF SILVER. 391 

Mr. Hooper, a Republican, who had charge of the bill in the House. His remarks 
appear in the Congressional Glohe^ volume 89, page 2304, the date being April 9, 
1873. In his speech made at that time explaining this bill, Mr. Hooper said : 

The bill under consideration is believed to contain all that is valuable in 
existing laws, with such new provisions added as appear necessary to those best 
acquainted with the subject for the eflficiency and economy of the public service 
in the important department to which it relates. The bill was prepared two years 
ago and has been submitted to careful and deliberate examination. It has the 
approval of nearly all the mint experts of the country and the sanction of the 
Secretary of the Treasury. 

Mr. Speaker, here is the part to which I want to direct the special attention 
of this House and the country : 

Mr. Ernest Seyd, of London, a distinguished writer, who has given great 
attention to the subject of mints and coinage, after examining the first draught of 
the bill, furnished many valuable suggestions, which have been incorporated in 
this bill. 

While the committee take no credit to themselves for the original preparation 
of this bill, they have given to it the most careful consideration, and have no 
hesitation in unanimously recommending its passage as necessary and expedient. 

Great Heaven ! Is it possible that this great crime against the American peo- 
ple now confessed was knowingly and willfully committed by the Republican 
Administration at the suggesiion or dictation of this English banker ? The fol- 
lowing paragraph I take from a publication made by Mrs. Sarah E. V. Emery, of 
Michigan, quoted by her as having been published about that time : 

In 1873, silver being demonetized in France, England, and Holland, a capital 
of $500,000 was raised, and Ernest Seyd, of London, was sent to this country with 
this fund, as agent of the foreign bondholders and capitalists, to effect the same 
object, (demonetization of silver), which was accomplished. 

Here is what this lady says about this matter : 

I will further add that I heard Hon. Gilbert DeLamatyr say that Judge Kelley 
told him that he (Kelley) saw the original draught of the bill for the demonetiza- 
tion of silver, and it was in Ernest Seyd's own handwriting. 

Now, in the ilame of all that is honest and manly, is it possible that the 
Congress of the United States, at the suggestion of an English banker, whether he 
had money or not, whether he used it or not, was the means by which silver was 
struck down and so much suffering brought upon our people ? If this be true yon 
need not be surprised that the people look with suspicion on the scheme now 
pending. But let me say to you that if you strike it down again it will not be 
seventeen years before the people will know who did it and the reason why it was 
done. They have their eyes on you. 

What the Record Shows. 

The record, then, of the two parties shows that one has, by 
a very large majority of its Senators and Representatives, sup- 
ported the cause of free and unlimited coinage, while the other 
has, by a large majority of Hs Senators and Representatives, 
nearly always opposed it. 

In the present Congress we see the Republican House in- 



392 DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 

variably voting against every proposition — always coming from 
Democrats — in favor of this cause. We see the Republican 
Speaker secretly referring the Senate free coinage bill to a com- 
mittee to delay action on it ; and when his trick was discovered 
we find that the Republican majority resorted to all sorts of 
jugglery and filibustering, using every instrumentality of par- 
liamentary procedure to prevent the passage of a free coinage 
measure ; and whenever a vote was taken the Democratic party 
was substantially unanimous in favor of free coinage, while the 
Republican party was almost unanimous against it. 

The final vote resulted in the passage of a bill that is antago- 
nistic to the cause, and this received every Republican vote that 
was cast, while against it was arrayed the solid Democratic vote 
of both Houses. 



ORIGINAL PACKAGES. ' 393 



ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 



AN ACT TO SUBJECT THEM TO STATE LAWS— CONGRES- 
SIONAL PROHIBITION. 



The Wilson Bill. 

In its last term the Supreme Court of the United States 
decided the case of Leisy & Co. vs. Hardin which came up on writ 
of error from the State of Iowa. This is what is known as the 
original package decision, in which the Court decided that arti- 
cles of interstate commerce, when exported from one State to 
another, can, so long as they remain in the hands of the im- 
porter and in the unbroken original package in which they were 
brought into the State, be sold in the latter State, notwithstanding 
any prohibition of the sale of such articles contained in the law 
of that State. 

In the course of the opinion the Court delivered a dictum 
indicating that Congress might, under its power to regulate 
commerce among the several States, consent to the extension of 
the police powers of the States over such articles in such a 
condition 

Among a large portion of the people and of the legal pro- 
fession this decision and this dictum were both regarded as in 
some degree themselves original packages. 

But, upon that dictum, Senator Wilson, of Iowa, proceeded 
to introduce a bill to subject such articles to the laws of the 
States. The bill passed the Senate in the following shape : 

An Act to limit the effect of the regulations of commerce between the several 
States and with foreign countries in certain cases. 
Be it enctcted by tlie Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That all fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating 
liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for 
use, consumption, sale or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Terri- 
tory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory 
enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same 
manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or 
Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein 
in original packages or otherwise. 
50 



394 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



When the bill had passed Sjenator Voorhees moved to amend 
the title to read as follows : 

A bill to overrule the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
its interpretation and construction of the Constitution on the subject of commerce 
between the States and to thereby relieve the State of Iowa from the consequences 
of her own misguided legislation. 

Messrs. Bate, Blackburn, Eustis, Turpie, Vest, and Voorhees 
voted in the affirmative. The negative was 37 ; not voting, 41. 

The bill went to the House, where the following substitute 
was adopted : 

It shall not be lawful to import into any State or Territory, from any other 
State or Territory, or from the District of Columbia, any fermented, distilled, or 
other intoxicating liquor, except in one or more original packages, as defined by 
this act. 

Sec. 2. That for the purposes of this act, an original package of intoxicating 
liquor, in bottles, shall be a case containing not less than one dozen quart bottles ; 
and an original package of liqxior not in bottles, shall contain not less than five 
gallons : Promded, JK/iDener, That an original package of liquor, imported from any 
foreign nation, shall contain the quantity required by the laws relating to duties 
upon imports. 

Sec. 3. It shall not be lawful to sell within any State or Territory any intoxi- 
cating liquor imported into such State or Territory, except in the original package 
in which the same has been imported, and subject to the reasonable police regula- 
tions of such State or Territory regulating the sale of such liquor as a beverage. 

On the adoption of this substitute the vote was as follows : 







YEAS— 113. 


Adams, 


Dibble, 


Lester, Ga. 


Anderson, Miss. 


Dickerson, 


Lester, Va. 


Baker, 


Dockei-yi 


Lewis, 


Bartine, 


Dunn ell, 


Maish, 


Barwig-, 


Dunphy, 


Martin, Ind. 


Bayne, 


Edmunds, 


McAdoo, 


Bliss, 


Ellis, 


McCarthy, 


Boatner, 


Farquhar, 


McClellan, 


Breckinridge, Ky. 


Flood, 


McCord, 


Brickner, 


Forman, 


McCormick:, 


Brookshire, 


Forney, 


McCreary, 


Brown, J. B. 


Fowler, 


McMillin, 


Buchanan, Va. 


Frank, 


McRae, 


Bullock, 


Gest, 


Moore, N. H. 


Burton, 


Goodnight, 


Mutchler, 


Bynum, 


Grosvenor, 


Gates, 


Caldwell, 


Haugen, 


O'Ferrall, 


Candler, Ga. 


Hayes, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Carlton, 


Haynes, 


Osborne, 


Caruth, 


Hemphill, 


Outhwalte, 


Caswell, 


Hermann, 


Owen, Ind. 


Cheadle, 


Holman, 


Owens, Ohio. 


Clunie, 


Kinsey, 


Parrett, 


Comstock, 


La Follette, 


Payne, 


Cooper, Ind. 


Laidlaw, 


Paynter, 


( \)thran. 


Lane, 


Peel, 


(Yisp, 


Lawler, 


Penington, 


Cummings, 


Laws, 


Price, 


Davidson. 


Lehlbach. 


Quinn. 



Reed, Iowa. 

Reilly, 

Richardson, 

Sawyer, 

Scranton, 

Scull, 

Shively, 

Simonds, 

Skinner, 

Snider, 

Stockbridge, 

Stone, Ky. 

Thomas, 

Tracey, 

Turner, N. Y. 

Van Schaick, 

Vaux, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whitthorne, 

Wike, 

Wiley. 

Willcox, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Yardley. 

Yoder. 



ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 



395 



NATS~97. 



Abbott, 


Darlington, 


McKenna, 


Allen, Mich. 


Dolliver, 


Miles, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Elliott, 


Morey, 
Morrm, 


Banks, 


Evans, 


Belknap, 


Featherston, 


Morrow, 


Bergen, 


Finley, 


Morse, 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Fithian, 


O'Donnell, 


Brewer, 


Flick, 


O'Neill, Mass. 


Brosius, 


Funston, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Buchanan, N. J. 
Candler, Mass. 


Gear, 


Payson, 


Giflord, 


Perkins, 


Cannon, 


Greenhalge, 


Peters, 


Carter, 


Henderson, Iowa. 


Pickler, 


Catching?, 


HiU, 


Pugsley, 


Chipman, 


Hitt, 


Quackenbush, 
Raines, 


(.'ogswell. 


Hopkins, 


Coleman, 


Houk, 


Ray, 


Conger, 


Kelley, 


Rife, 


Cooper, Ohio. 
Craig, 


Kennedy, 


Robertson, 


Kerr, Iowa. 


Rockwell, 


Crain, 


T^cey, 


Rowell, 


( 'ulberson, Tex. 


Lanham, 
Martin, Tex. 


RusseU, 


( ulbertson, Pa. 


Sayers, 


(utcheon, 


Mason, 


Smith, III. 


Dalzell, 


McDuffle, 


Spooner, 




NOT 


VOTING— 117. 


Alderson, 


Qark, Wis. 


Ketcham, 


Allen, Miss. 


Clements, 


Kilgore, 


Anderson, Kans. 


Cobb, 


Knapp, 


Andrew, 


Connell, 


Lansing, 


Arnold, 


Covert,, 


Lee, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


Cowles, 


Lind, 


Bankhead, 


Dargan, 
De Haven, 


Lodge, 


Barnes, 


Magner, 


Beckwith, 


De Lano, 


Mansur, 


Belden, 


Dingley, 


McClammy, 


Biggs, 


Dorsey, 


McComas, 


Bingham, 


Enloe, 


McKinley, 


Blanchard, 


Ewart, 


Milliken, 


Bland, 


Fitch, 


MiUs, 


Blount, 


Flower, 


Moffit, 


Boothman» 


Geissenhainer, 


Montgomery, 


Boutelle, 


Gibson, 


Moore, Tex. 


Bowden, 


Grimes, 


Morgan, 


Brower, 


Grout, 


Mudd, 


Browne, T. M. 


Hall, 


Niedringhaus, 


Browne, Va. 


Hansbrough, 


Norton, 


Brunner, 


Hare, 


Nute, 


Buckalew, 


Harmer, 


Perry, 


Bunn, 


Hatch, 


Phelan, 


Burrows, 


Heard, 


Pierce, 


Butterworth, 


Henderson, m. 


Post, 


Campbell, 


Henderson, N. C. 


Randall, 


Cheatham, 


Herbert, 


Reyburn, 


Clancy, 


Hooker, 


Rogers, 


Clarke, Ala. 


Keiu", Pa 


Rowland, 



Stephenson, 
Stewart, Tex. 
Stewart, Vt. 
Stivers, 
Struble, 
Stump, 
Sweney, 
Taylor, IlL 
Taylor, Tenn. 
Taylor, E. B. 
Taylor, J. D. 
Thompson, 
Townsend, Colo, 
Townsend, Pa. 
Turner, Kaus. 
Van d ever, 
Wad dill. 
Walker, 
Wallace^. Y. 
Wilson, Ky. 
Wilson, Wash.; 
Wright, 



Rnsfc, 

Sanford, 

Seney, 

Sherman, 

Smith, W. Va. 

Smyser, 

Spinola, 

Springer, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Venable, 

Wade, 

Wallace, Mass. 

Washington, 

Watson, 

Wheeler, Mich. 

Whiting, 

Wickham, 

Wilkinson, 

Williams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Mo. 



Mr. Grosvenor, of Ohio, moved to reconsider, and then a 
motion was made to lay that motion on the table. 
On this the vote was as follows : 



Adams, 

Anderson, Miss. 

Baker, 

Bartine, 

Barwig, 

Bayne, 

Boatner, 

Breckinridge, Ark. 

Breckinridge, Ky. 

Brickner, 

Brookshire, 

Brown, J. B. 

Buchanan, Va. 

Bullock, 

Burton, 





YEAS-118. 




Dibble, 


Lester, Va. 


Richardson^ 


Dickerson, 


Lewis, 


Robertson, 


Dockery, 


Maish, 


Scranton, 


Dunnell, 


Martin, Ind. 


Scull, 


Dunphy, 


McAdoo, 


Shively, 


Edmunds, 


McCarthy, 


Simonds, 


Ellis, 


McClellan, 


Skinner, 


Enloe, 


McCord, 


Snider, 


Farquhar, 


McCormick, 


Stewart, Vt. 


Flood, 


McCreary, 


Stivers, 


Forman, 


McMillin, 


Stockbrldge, 


Forney, 


McRae, 


Stone, Ky. 


Fowler, 


Moore, N. H, 


Thomas, 


Frank, 


Mutchler, 


Traeey, 


Gest, 


Oates, 


Turner, N. Y. 



396 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Bynum, 


Goodnight, 


O'Ferrall. 


Van Schaick, 


Caldwell, 


Haugen, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Vaux, 


Candler, Ga« 


Hayes, 


Outhwaite, 


Washington, 


Carlton, 


Haynes, 


Osborne, 


Wheeler, Ala. 


Caruth, 


Hemphill, 


Owen, Ind. 


Whitthorne, 


Caswell, 


Hermann, 


Owens, Ohio. 


Wike, 


Cheadle, 


Holman, 


Parrett, 


Wiley.. 


Clunie, 


Kerr, Iowa. 


Payne, 


Willcox, 


Comstock, 


Klnsey, 


Paynter, 


Williams, 111. 


Connell, 


La Follette, 


Peel, 


Wilson, W. Va. 


Cooper, Ind. 


Lane, 


Penington, 


Yar^ley. 


Cothran, 


Lawler, 


Price, 


Toder. 


Crisp, 


Laws, 


Quinn, 




Cummings, 


Lehlbach, 


Reed, Iowa. 




Davidson, 


Lester, Ga. 


Reilly, 

NAYS-95. 




Abbott, 


Dalzell, 


Lanham, 


R.ussell, 


Allen, Mich. 


Darlington, 


Martin, Tex. 


Sayers, 


Anderson, Kans. 


Dolliver, 


Mason, 


Spooner, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Elliott, 


McDuffle, 


Stephenson, 


Banks, 


Evans, 


McKenna, 


ot.ewart, Tex. 


Belknap, 


Ewart, 


Miles, 


Struble, 


Bergen, 


Eeatherston, 


Morey, 
Morrill, 


Stump, 


Boutelle, 


Finley, 


Sweney, 


Brewer, 


Fithian, 


Morrow, 


Taylor, E. B. 


Brosius, 


Flick, 


Morse, 


Taylor, 111. 


Buchanan, N. J. 
Candler, Mass. 


Funston, 


O'Donnell, 


Taylor, J. D. 


Gear, 


O'Neill, Mass. 


Taylor, Tenn. 


Cannon, 


Giflford, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Thompson, 


Catchings, 


Greenhalge, 


Payson, 


Townsend, Colo. 


Chipman, 


Grosvenor, 


Perkins. 


Townsend, Pa. 


Cogswell, 


Henderson, Iowa. 


Peters, 


Turner, Kans. 


Coleman, 


Hill, 


Pickler, 


Van d ever, 


Conger, 


Hitt, 


Pugsley, 


Wad dill. 


Cooper, Ohio. 


Hopkins, 


Quackenbush, 


Walker, 


Houk, 


Raines, 


Wallace, N. Y. 


Crain' 


Kelley, 


Ray, 


Wilson, Ky. 


Culberson, Tex. 


Kennedy, 


Rife, 


Wilson, Wash. 


Culbertson, Pa. 


Lacey, 


Rockwell, 


Wright, 


Cutcheon, 


Laidlaw, 


Rowell, 






NOT 


VOTING-114. 




Alderson, 


Clarke, Ala. 


Knapp, 


Sanford, 


Allen, Miss. 


Clements,: 


Lansing, 


Sawyer 


Andrew, 


Cobb, 


Lee, 


Seney, 


Arnold, 


Covert, 


Lind, 


Sherman, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


Cowles, 


Lodge, 


Smith, 111. 


Bankhead, 


Dargan, 
De Haven, 


Magner, 


Smith, W. Va. 


Barnes, 


Mansur, 


Smyser, 


Beckwith, 


De Lano, 


McClammy, 


Spinola, 


Belden, 


Dingley, 


McComas, 


Springer, 


Biggs, 


Dorsey, 


McKinley, 


Stahlnecker, 


Bingham, 


Fitch, 


Milliken, 


Stewart, Ga. 


Blanchard, 


Flower, 


Mills, 


Stockdale, 


Bland, 


Gelssenhainer, 


Mofflt, 


Stone, Mo. 


Bliss, 


Gibson, 


Montgomery, 


Tarsney, 


Blount, 


Grimes, 


Moore, Tex. 


Tillman, 


Boothman, 


Grout, 


Morgan, 


Tucker, 


Bowden, 


Hall, 


Mudd, 


Turner, Ga. 


Brower, 


Hansbrough, 


Niedringhaus, 


Venable, 


Browne, T. M. 


Hare, 


Norton, 


Wade 


Browne, Va. 


Harmer, 


Nute, 


Wallace, Mass. 


Brunner, 


Hatch, 


Perry, 


Watson, 


Buckalew, 


Heard, 


Phelan, 


Wheeler, Mich. 


Bunn, 


Henderson, 111. 


Pierce, 


Whiting, 


Burrows, 


Henderson, N. C. 


Post, 


Wickham, 


Butterworth, 


Herbert, 


Randall, 


Wilkinson, 


Campbell, 


Hooker, 


Reyburn, 


Wilson, Mo. 


Cheatham, 


Kerr, Pa 


Rogers, 


Williams, Ohio. 


Clancy, 
Clark, Wis. 


Ketcham, 


Rowland, 




Kilgore, 


Rusk, 





So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 

Mr. Breckinridge moved to recommit the bill to the Com- 
mittee on Judiciary, which motion was rejected. Then the vote 
was taken on the passage of the bill, and it stood as follows : 



ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 



397 



yEAS-176. 



Allen, Mich. 

Anderson, Kans. 

Anderson, Miss. 

Atkinson, Pa. 

Baker, 

Banks, 

Bartine, 

Barwlg, 

Bayne, 

Belknap, 

Bergen, 



Boatner, 

Boutelle, 

Brewer, 

Brickner, 

Brooksliire, 

Brosius, 

Brown, J. B. 

Buchanan, N. J. 

Buchanan, Va. 

Bullock, 

Burton, 

Bynum, 

Caldwell, 

Candler, Ga. 

Candler, Mass. 

Cannon, 

Carlton, 

CasweD, 

Catchings, 

Che«dle, 

Cogswell, 

Coleman, 

Com stock. 

Conger, 

Connell, 

Cooper, Ind. 

Cooper, Ohio. 

Cothran, 

Craig, 

Crisp, 

Culbertson, Pa. 

Cutcheon, 



Abbott, 

Adams, 

Breckinridge, Ark. 

Breckinridge, Ky. 

Carter, 

Caruth, 

Chipman, 

Clunie, 

Crain, 

Culberson, Tex.- 



Alderson, 

Allen, Miss. 

Andrew, 

Arnold, 

Atkinson, W. Va. 

Bankhead, 

Barnes, 

Beckwith, 

Belden, 

Biggs, 

Bingham, 

Blanchard, 

Bland, 

IJlount, 

Bootliman, 

Bowden, 

Brower, 

Browne, T. M. 

Browne, Va. 

Brunner, 

Buckalew, 

Bunn, 

Burrows. 



Dalzell, 

Darlington, 

Davidson, 

Dibble, 

Dickerson, 

Dockery, 

Dolliver, 

Dunnell, 

Edmunds, 

Ellis, 

Enloe, 

Evans, 

Ewart, 

Farquhar, 

Featherston, 

Finley, 

Fithian, 

Flick, 

Flood, 

Forney, 

Funston, 

Gear, 

Gest, 

GifEord, 

Goodnight, 

Greenhalge, 

Grosvenor, 

Haugen, 

Haynes, 

Henderson, Iowa. 

Hermann, 

Hill, 

Hitt, 

Holman, 

Hopkins, 

Houk, 

Kelley, 

Kennedy, 

Kerr, Iowa. 

Kinsey, 

Lacey, 

La Follette, 

Xrfiidlaw, 

Lane, 



Laws, 

Lester, Ga. 

Lester, Va. 

Lewis, 

Maish, 

Martin, Ind. 

McClellan, 

McCord, 

McCormick, 

McCreary, 

McDuffle, 

McKenna, 

McMillin, 

McRae, 

Miles, 

Moore, N. H. 

Morey, 

Morrill, 

Morrow, 

Morse, 

Oates, 

O'Donnell, 

O'Ferrall, 

O'Neall, Ind. 

O'Neill, Pa. 

Osborne, 

Owen, Ind. 

Owens, Ohio. 

Parrett, 

Payne, 

Paynter, 

Payson, 

Peel, 

Penington, 

Perkins, 

Peters, 

Pickler, 

Price, 

Pugsley, 

Quackenbush, 

Raines, 

Ray, 

Reed, Iowa. 

Reilly, 



Cummings, 

Dunphy, 

Elliott, 

Forman, 

Fowler, 

Frank, 

Hayes, 

Lanham, 

Lawler, 

Lehlbach, 



NATS— 38. 

Martin, Tex. 

Mason, 

McAdoo, 

McCarthy, 

Mutchler, 

O'Neill, Mass. 

Outhwaite, 

Quinn, 

Richardson, 

Sayers, 

NOT VOTING— 113. 



Clements, 

Cobb, 

Covert, 

Cowles, 

Dargan, 

De Haven, 

De Lano, 

Dingley, 

Dorsey, 

Fitch, 

Flower, 

G^issenhainer, 

Gibson, 

Grimes, 

Grout, 

Hall, 

Hansbrouffh, 

Hare, 

Harmer, 

Hatch, 

Heard, 

Hemphill, 

Henderson, 111. 



Knapp, 

Lansing, 

Lee, 

Lind, 

Lodge, 

Magner, 

Mansur, 

McClammy, 

McComas, 

McKinley, 

Milliken, 

Mills, 

Mofflt, 

Montgomery, 

Moore, Tex. 

Morgan, 

Muddj 

Niedrmghaus, 

Norton, 

Nute, 

Perry, 

Phelan, 

Pierce, 



Rife, 

Robertson, 

Rockwell, 

Rowell, 

Russell, 

Sawyer 

Scranton, 

Scull, 

Shively, 

Simonds, 

Skinner, 

Smyser, 

Snider, 

Spooner, 

Stephenson, 

Stewart, Vt. 

Stivers, 

Stockbridge, 

Stone, Ky. 

Struble, 

Stump, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, E, B. 

Taylor, J. D. 

Taylor, Tenn. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, ^ 

Townsend, Colo 

Townsend, Pa. 

Tracey, 

Turner, Kans. 

Waddill, 

Walker, 

Wallace, N. Y. 

Washington, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Wiiicox, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Wright, 

Yardley. 

Yoder. 



Stewart, Tex. 
Taylor, 111. 
Turner, N. Y. 
Van Schaick, 
Vaux, 

Whitthorne, 
Wike, 
Wiley. 



Sanford, 

Seney, 

Sherman, 

Smith, 111. 

Smith W. Va. 

Spinola, 

Springer, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Tillman, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Van d ever, 

Venable, 

Wade, 

Wallace, Mass. 

Watson, 

Wheeler, Mich. 

Whiting, 

Wlckham. 



398 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



Butterworth, 
Campbell, 
Cheatham, 
Clancy, 
Clark, Wis. 
Clarke, Ala. 



Henderson, 

Herbert, 

Hooker, 

Kerr, Pa 

Ketcham, 

Kilgore, 



N. C. 



Post. 


Wilkinson, 


Randall, 


Wilson, Mo. 


Reybum, 


Williams, Ohio, 


Rogers, 




Rowland, 




Rusk, 





So the bill passed- 

The Senate non-concurred, and a conference was appointed. 
The conference recommended that the House recede from its 
amendment, and on this report the previous question was 
ordered by the following* vote : 





YEAS~103. 


Allen, Mich. 


Culbertson, Pa. 


Knapp, 


Anderson, Kans. 


Cutcheon, 


Lacey, 


Arnold, 


Dalzell, 


La FoUette, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Darlington, 


Laidlaw, 


Baker, 


Dingley, 
Dolliver, 


Laws, 


Banks, 


Lodge, 


Bartine, 


Dorsey, 


McDuffle, 


Ba3aie, 
Belden, 


Evans, 


Miles, 


Farquhar, 


Milliken, 


Belknap, 


Featherston, 


Moffltt, 


Bergen, 


Flick, 


Moore, N. H., 


Bingham, 


Funston, 


Morrill, 


Boutelle, 


Gear, 


Morrow, 


Brewer, 


Gest, 


Morse, 


Brosius, 


Giflord, 


Gates, 


Browne, Va„ 


Greenhalge, 


O'Donnell, 


Buchanan, N. J. 


Grosvenor, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Burrows, 


Harmer, 


Osborne, 


Candler, Mass. 


Henderson, 111. 


Owen, Ind. 


Cannon, 


Henderson, Iowa, 


Payne, 


Carter, 


Hill, 


Payson, 


Cogswell, 


Hitt, 
Hopkins, 


Perkins, 


Comstock, 


Peters, 


Conger, 


Kelley, 


Pickler, 


Cooper, Ohio. 


Kennedy, 


Pugsley, 


Craig, 


Kerr, Iowa, 


Raines, 




NAYS-96. 


Abbott, 


Davidson, 


Lee, 


A.dams, 


Dunnell, 


Lehlbach, 


Barwig, 


Edmunds, 


Lester, Va. 


Breckinridge, Ky. 


Elliott, 


Maish, 


Brickner, 


Fithian, 


Mansur, 


Brookshire, 


Flower, 


Martin, Ind. 


Brown, J. B. 


Forman, 


Martin, Tex. 


Brunner, 


Forney, 


Mason, 


Buchanan, Va. 


Fowler, 


McClammy, 


Bunn, 


Geissenhainer, 


McClellan, 


Burton, 


Gibson, 


McCormick, 


Bynum, 


Goodnight, 


McMillin, 


Campbell, 


Grimes, 


McRae, 


Caruth, 


Hatch, 


Montgomery, 


Caswell, 


Haugen, 


Morey, 


Catchings, 


Hayes, 


Morgan, 


Clieadle, 


Haynes, 


Mutchler, 


Cliipmau, 


Heard, 


O'Ferrall, 


Clunie, 


Henderson, N. C. 


O'Neil, Mass. 


Cooper, Ind. 


Herbert, 


Outhwaite, 


Clrain, 


Holman, 


Owens, Ohio 


('risp, 


Kinsey, 


Parrett, 


Culberson, Tex. 


Lane, 


Paynter, 


Cummings, 


Lawler, 


Peel, 




NOT 


VOTING-128. 


Alderson, 


Connell, 


Lewis, 


Allen, Miss. 


Cotlu'an, 


Lind, 


Anderson, Miss. 


Covert, 


Magner, 


Andrew, 


Cowles, 


McAdoo, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


Dargan, 


McCarthy, 


iJaukliead, 


De Haven, 


McConias, 


Harues, 


De Lano, 


McCor.1, 


Beckvvith, 


Dibble, 


McCreary, 


HifCgs, 


Dickerson, 


ISlcKenna, 


Blanchard. 


Dockerv, 


McKinley. 



Ray, 

Reed, Iowa, 

Rowell, 

Sawyer, 

Scull, 

Smith, HI. 

Smith, W. Va. 

Snider, 

Spooner, 

Stephenson, 

Stivers, 

Struble, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, E. B. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, 

Townsend, Col. 

Townsend, Pa. 

Vandever, 

Waddill, 

Wallace, N. Y. 

WilUams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 



Penington, 

Reilly, 

Richardson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Sayers, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

■Stewart, Tex. 

Stockbridge, 

Stone, 'Ky. 

Stump, 

Taylor, 111., 

Tillman, 

Tracey, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Van Schaick, 

Vaux, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whitthorne, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Yoder, 



Scranton, 

Seney, 

Sherman, 

Shivel:^ 

Simonds, 

Smyser, 

Spinola, 

Stalilnecker, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stewart, Vt. 



ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 



399 



Bland, 

Bliss, 

Blount, 

Boatner, 

Boothman, 

Bowden, 

Breckinridge, Ark. 

Brower, 

Browne, T. M. 

Buckalew, 

Bullock, 

Butterworth, 

Caldwell, 

Candler, Ga. 

Carlton, 

Cheatham, 

Clancy, 

Clark, Wis. 

Clarke, Ala, 

Clements, 

'Cobb, 

■Coleman^ 



Dunphy 

Ellis, 

Enloe, 

Ewart, 

Finley, 

Fitch, 

Flood, 

Frank, 

Grout, 

HaU. 

Hansbrough, 

Hare, 

Hemphill, 

Hermann, 

Hooker, 

Houk, 

Kerr, Pa 

Ketcham, 

Kllgore, 

Lanham, 

Lansing, 

Lester, Ga. 



Mills, 

Moore, Tex. 

Mudd, 

Niedringhaus, 

Norton, 

Nute, 

O'Neall, Ind. 

Perry, 

Phelan, 

Pierce, 

Post, 

Price, 

Quackenbush, 

Qulnn, 

Randall, 

Reybnrn, 

Rife, 

Robertson, 

Rockwell, 

Rusk, 

Russell, 

Santord, 



Stockdale, 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Taylor, J. D. 

Taylor, Tenn., 

Turner, Kans. 

Turner, N. Y. 

Venable, 

Wade, 

Walker, 

Wallace, Mass. 

Washington, 

Watson, 

Wheeler, Mich. 

Whiting, 

Wickham, 

Wike, 

Wiley, 

Wilkinson, 

Willcox, 

Wilson, Mo. 

Yardley. 



Mr. Oates, of Alabama moved to reconsider, and upon this 
the vote was : 







TEAS-107. 


Allen, Mich. 


Cooper, Ohio. 


Knapp, 


Anderson, Kans. 


Craig, 


Lacey, 


Arnold, 


Culbertson, Pa. 


La Follette, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Cutcheon, 


Laidlaw, 


Baker, 


DalzeU, . 


Laws, 


Banks, 


Darlington, 


Lodge, 
McKenna, 


Bartine, 


Dingley, 


Bayne, 


DoUiver, 


Miles, 


Belden, 


Dorsey, 


Milliken, 


Belknap, 


Evans, 


Moffltt, 


Bergen, 


Featherston, 


Moore, N. H., 


Bingham, 


Flick, 


MorriU, 


Boothman, 


Funston, 


Morrow, 


Boutelle, 


Gear, 


Morse, 


Brewer, 


Gest, 


O'Donnell, 


Brosius, 


Giflord, 


O'Neill, Pa. 


Brower, 


Greenhalge, 


Osborne, 


Browne, Va„ 


Grosvenor, 


Owen, Ind. 


Buchanan, N. J. 


Haugen, 


Payne, 


Burrows, 


Henderson, HI. 


Payson, 


Candler, Mass. 


Henderson, Iowa, Perkins, 


Cannon, 


Hill, 


Peters, 


Carter, 


Hitt, 


Pickler, 


Cheatham, 


Hopkins, 


Pugsley, 


Cogswell, 


Kelley, 


Quackenbush, 


Corastock, 


Kennedy, 


Raines, 


Conger, 


Kerr, Iowa, 


Ray, 

NA rS— 95. 


Abbott, 


Edmunds, 


Lester, Va. 


Adams, 


Elliott, 


Lewis, 


Barwig, 


Ellis, 


Maish, 


Breckinridge, Ky. 


Fithian, 


Mansur, 


Brickner, 


Flower, 


Martin, Ind. 


Brookshire, 


Forman, 


Martin, Tex. 


Brown, J, B. 


Forney, 


Mason, 


Brunner, 


Fowler, 


McAdoo, 


Buchanan, Va. 


Geissenhainer, 


McClammy, 


Bynum, 


Goodnight, 


McClellan, 


Campbell, 


Grimes, 


McCormick, 


Caruth, 


Hatch, 


McMillin, 


Caswell, 


Hayes, 


Montgomery, 


Catchings, 


Haynes, 


Morey, 


Cheadle, 


Heard, 


Morgan, 


Chipman, 


Henderson, N. 


C. Mutchler, 


Clunie, 


Herbert, 


Oates, 


Cooper, Ind. 


Holman, 


O'Ferrall, 


Crain, 


Kinsey, 


O'Neil, Mass. 


Crisp, 


Lane, 


Outhwaite, 


Culberson, Tex. 


■ Lanham, 


Owens. Ohio 


Cummiugs, 


Lawler, 


Parrett, 


Davidson, 


Lee, 


Peel, 


Dunnell, 


Lehlbach, 


Penington, 



Reed, Iowa, 

Rockwell, 

Rowell, 

Sawyer, 

Scull, 

Smith, HI. 

Smith, W. Va. 

Snider, 

Spooner, 

Stepixenson, 

Stivers, 

Struble, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, E. B. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, 

Townsend, Col. 

Townsend, Pa. 

Turner, Kans. 

Van d ever, 

Waddill, 

Wallace, N. T. 

Williams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 



Reilly, 
Richardson, 

Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Sayers, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockbridge, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stump, 

Taylor, 111., 

Tillman, 

Ti-acey, 

Tucker, 

Turner, Ga. 

Van Schaick, 

Taux, 

Wheeler, Ala. 

Whitthorne, 

Williams, 111. 

Wilson, W. Va. 

Yoder, 



400 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 







NOT VOTING~125. 


Alderson, 


Cothran, 


Lind, 


Allen, Miss. 


Covert, 


Magner, 
McCarthy, 


Anderson, Miss. 


Cowles, 


A-ndrew, 


Dargan, 
De Haven,. 


McComas, 


Atkinson, W. Va. 


McCord, 


Bankhead, 


De Lano, 


McCreary, 


Barnes, 


Dibble, 


McDuffle, 


Beckwith, 


Dickerson, 


McKinley, 


Biggs, 


Dockery, 


McRae, 


Blanchard, 


Dunphy, 


Mills, 


Bland, 


Enloe, 


Moore, Tex. 


Bliss, 


Ewart, 


Mudd, 


Blount, 


Farquhar, 


Niedringhaus, 


Boatner, 


Finley, 


•Norton, 


Bowden, 


Fitch, 


Nute, 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Flood, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Browne, T. M. 


Frank, 


Paynter, 


Buckalew, 


Gibson, 


Perry, 


Bullock, 


Grout, 


Phelan, 


Bunn, 


HaU. 


Pierce, 


Burton, 


Hansbrough, 


Post, 


Butterworth, 


Hare, 


Price, 


Caldwell, 


Harmer, 


Quinn, 


Candler, Ga. 


HemphiU, 


Randall, 


Carlton, 


Hermann, 


Reyb urn, 


Clancy, 


Hooker, 


Rife, 


Clark, Wis. 


Houk, 


Robertson, 


Clarke, Ala, 


Kerr, Pa 


Rusk, 


Clements, 


Ketcham, 


Russell, 


Cobb, 


Kilgore, 


Santord, 


Coleman, 


Lansing, 
Lester, Ga. 


Scranton, 


Connell, 


Seney, 



Sherman, 

Shively, 

Simonds, 

Smyser, 

Spinola, 

Stahlnecker, 

Stewart, Ga. 

Stewart, Vt. 

Stockdale, 

Stone, Mo. 

Tarsney, 

Taylor, J, D. 

Taylor, Tenn., 

Turner, N. Y. 

Venable, 

Wade, 

Walker, 

Wallace, Mass. 

Washington, 

Watson, 

Wheeler, Mich. 

Whiting, 

Wlckham, 

Wike, 

Wiley, 

Wilkinson, 

Wilicox, 

Wilson, Mo. 

Yardley. 



Then came the final vote on the adoption of tlie conference 
report, and it stood : 



Allen, Mich. 


Culbertson, Pa. 


La Follette, 


Anderson, Kans 


Dalzell, 


Laidlaw, 


Arnold, 


Darlington, 


Laws, 


Atkinson, Pa. 


Dingley, 


Lewis, 


Baker, 


Dolliver, 


Lodge, 


Banks, 


Dorsey, 


Mason, 


Bartine, 


Dunnell, 


McComas, 


Belden, 


Evans, 


McDuffle, 


Belknap, 


Ewart, 


McKenna, 


Bergen, 


Featherston, 


Miles, 


Bingham, 


Fithian, 


Milliken, 


Boothman, 


Flick, 


Moffltt, 


Boutelle, 


Flood, 


Moore, N. H., 


Brewer, 


Funston, 


Morey, 


Brosius, 


Gear, 


Morrill, 


Browne, Va„ 


Gest, 


Morrow, 


Buchanan, N. J. 


Gifford,, 


Morse, 


Burrows, 


Greenhalge, 


O'Donnell, 


Candler, Mass. 


Grosveuor, 


O^NeiU, Pa. 


Cannon, 


Haugen, 


Osborne, 


Carter, 


Henderson, Iowa, Owen, Ind. 


Cheadle, 


Herbert, 


Payne, 


Cheatham, 


Hill, 


Payson, 


Cogswell, 


Hitt, 


Perkins, 


Comstock, 


Hopkins, 


Peters, 


Conger, 


KeUey, 


Plckler, 


Connell, 


Kennedy, 


Post, 


Cooper, Ohio. 


Kerr, Iowa, 


Pugsley, 
Raines, 


Craig, 


Knapp, 


Crisp, 


Lacey, 


Ray. 
NAYS-93. 


Abbott, 


Davidson, 


Mansur, 


Adams, 


Elliott, 


Martin, Ind. 


Barwig, 


Ellis, 


Martin, Tex. 


Bayne, 


Flower, 


McAdoo, 


Beckwith, 


Forman, 


McClammy, 


Breckinridge, Ark. 


Forney, 


McClellan, 


Breckinridge, Ky. 


Fowler, 


McCord, 


Brlckner, 


Frank, 


McCormick, 


Brookshire, 
Brown, J. B. 


G«is6enhainer 


McMillln, 


Gibson, 


McUae, 


Brunner, 


Goodnight, 


Montgomery, 



Reed, Iowa, 

Reyburn, 

Rockwell, 

RoweU, 

Sawyer, 

Scull, 

Sherman, 

Smith, 111. 

Smith, W. Va. 

Snider, 

Spooner, 

Stephenson, 

Stivers, 

Struble, 

Sweney, 

Taylor, E, B. 

Thomas, 

Thompson, 

Townsend, Col. 

Townsend, Pa. 

Turner, Kans. 

Vandever, 

Waddill, 

Wallace, N. Y. 

Watson, 

Williams, Ohio. 

Wilson, Ky. 

Wilson, Wash. 

Wright, 



Rogers, 

Rowland, 

Savers, 

Skinner, 

Springer, 

Stewart, Tex. 

Stockbrldge, 

Stone, Ky. 

Stump, 

Tlllmau, 

Tiacey, 



ORIGINAL PACKAGES. 



01 



Bunn, 

Burton, 

Bynum, 

Campbell, 

Caruth, 

Caswell, 

Catchings, 

(.''hipmau, 

Clunie, 

Cooper, Ind. 

Crain, 

Culberson, Tex. 

Cummings, 



Alderson, 

Allen, Miss 

Anderson, Miss. 

Andrew, 

Atkinson, "W. Va. 

Bankhead, 

Barnes, 

Biggs, 

Blanchard, 

Bland, 

Bliss, 

Blount, 

Boatner, 

Bowden, 

Brbwer, 

Browne, T. M. 

Buchanan, Va. 

Buckalew, 

Bullock, 

Butterworth, 

Caldwell, 

Candler, Ga. 

Carlton, 

Clancy, 

Clark, Wis. 

Clarke, Ala, 

Clements, 

Cobb, 

Coleman, 



Grimes, 

Hatch, 

Hayes, 

Haynes, 

Heard, 

Hoi man, 

Kinsey, 

Lane, 

Lanham, 

Lawler, 

Lehlbach, 

Lester, Va. 

Maish, 



Morgan, 

Mutchlei', 

Gates, 

O'Ferrall, 

O'Neil, Mass. 

Outhwaite, 

Owens, Ohio 

Parrett, 

Paynter, 

Peel, 

Penington, 

"Reilly, 

Richardson, 

NOT VOTING— 115. 



Cothran, 

Covert, 

Cowles, 

Cutcheon, 

Dargan, 

De Haven, 

r>e Lano, 

Dibble, 

Dickerson, 

Dockery, 

Dunphy, 

Edmunds, 

Enloe, 

Farquhar, 

Finley, 

Fitch, 

Grout, 

Hall. 

Hansbrough, 

Hare, 

Harmer, 

Hemphill, 

Henderson, 111. 

Henderson, N. C. 

Hermann, 

Hooker, 

Houk, 

Kerr, Pa 

Ketcham, 



Tucker, 
Turner, Ga. 
Turner, N. Y. 
Van Schaick, 
Vaux, 

Wheeler, Ala. 
Whitthorne, 
Williams, 111. 
Wilson, W. Va. 
Yoder, 



Kllgore, 


Seney, 


Lansing, 


Shively, 


Lee, 


Simonds, 


Lester, Ga. 


Smyser, 


Lind, 


Spinola, 


Magner, 
McCarthy, 


Stahlnecker, 


Stewart, Ga. 


McCreary, 


Stewart, Vt. 


McKinley, 


■Stockdale, 


Mills, 


Stone, Mo. 


Moore, Tex. 


Tarsney, 


Mudd, 


Taylor, 111., 


Niedringhaus, 


Taylor, J. D. 


Norton, 


Taylor, Tenn., 


Nute, 


Venable, 


O'Neall, Ind. 


Wade.. 


Perry, 


Walker, 


Phelan, 


Wallace, Mass. 


Pierce, 


Washington, 


Price, 


Wheeler, Mich. 


Quackenbush, 
Quinn, 


Whiting, 


Wickham, 


Randall, 


Wike, 


Rife, 


Wiley, 


Robertson, 


Wilkinson, 


Rusk, 


Willcox, 


Russell, 


Wilson, Mo. 


Santord, 


Yardley. 


Scranton, 





The consequence of this vote was that the bill passed in the 
shape in which it came from the Senate, and it was approved by 
the President August 8. 

There was much opposition to the bill from the very start 
to the close. It is believed by many to be unconstitutional, and 
by some of them and others to be unwise. 

It raises several questions that can be determined only by 
the Supreme Court ; the most important of which are, perhaps : 
1. Is the bill constitutional in any event ? 2. Do the prohibition 
laws of the States existing prior to its enactment apply without 
re-enactment to "original packages'' taken into those States 
and sold from first hands ? 

Test cases have been made in Kansas and, perhaps, in other 
States, and they will be carried to the Supreme Court of the 
United States for determination. 



402 



DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN BOOK. 



POPULAR VOTE IN 1888. 



The following shows the votes polled for the various Presi- 
dential candidates at the last election. It is taken from a 
Eepublican hand-book: 





Republican. 
Harrison. 


Democratic. 
Cleveland. 


United Labor. 
Streeter. 


Prohibition. 

Fisk. 


Alabama 


57,197 

58,753 

124,816 

50,774 

74,584 

12,973 

26,659 

40,446 

370,475 

263,301 

211,958 

182,904 

155,134 

30,701 

73,734 

99,986 

183,892 

236,387 

142,492 

30,096 

236,253 

108,425 

7,238 

45,728 

144,360 

650,338 

134,784 

416,054 

33,291 

523,585 

21,969 

13,740 

138,988 

88,280 

45,192 

150,438 

78,171 

176,553 


117,320 

85,962 

117,729 

37,567 

74,930 

16,414 

39,561 

100,449 

348,371 

261,013 

179.877 

103,745 

183,800 

85,026 

50,482 

106,168 

151,855 

213,469 

104,385 

85,471 

361,954 

80,553 

5,326 

43,456 

151,508 

635,965 

147,902 

396,455 

26,522 

444,337 

17,530 

65,825 

158,779 

234,883 

16,788 

151,977 

78,677 

155,232 




593 




10,613 


614 




5,761 

3,191 

4,334 

400 


(jolorad o . . 


1,266 
340 




Delaware 


Florida 




403 






1,808 
21,703 

9,881 


Illinois 


7,i34 

3,694 
9,105 

37,788 


Indiana 


Iowa 


3,550 

6,779 




Kentucky 

TiOni«5iflTia, 


5,236 
137 


39 
1,345 




3,690 
4 767 


Maryland 


Af a «!«!« plin <5p1".i;«i 




8,701 

30,945 

15,311 

218 


Michigan 


4,555 
1,097 
223 
18,589 
4,226 






Missouri. 


4,540 
9,429 




41 


New Hampshire 


43 


1,593 

7,933 

30,231 


New York 


636 


TVnvf.ln flarnliTin . .. 


Ohio 


3,496 
363 

3,877 


24,536 


Oresron 


1,677 
20,708 




Rhode Island 


1,251 


Sonf.h nprnlina . . . 








5.969 


Texas 

Vprmnnf, . . . 


20,459 


4,749 
1,459 
1,678 
1,084 
14,277 






West Virginia 


1,508 
8,553 




Total 


5,440,708 
47. 8B 


5,536,243 
48.63 


146,836 
1.37 


246,876 


Per cent 


2.16 







Total Presidential vote 11,385,171 

Cleveland's plurality 95,534 

All over Harrison 503,755 



I< 



^^u.^^^/ h^C ^'^--^^ 



INDBX. 



PAGE 

"A PAUPER PENSION ACT"- 

Act Disability 325 and 327 

Deficiency 325 

G. A. R. Resolutions 325 and 327 

Hovey, Speech 325 and 326 

Partiality 326 

Service Pension Refused 327 

ASSETS AND LIABILITIES— 

Statement of Treasury — 328 

Surplus 3^ 

CONTESTED ELECTIONS— 

Atkinson vs. Pendleton... 142, 143and 145 

Counted out 145 

Statements of Vote 143 and 144 

Bo wen m. Buchanan 142 

Chalmers vs. Morgan 142 

Clayton vs. Breckinridge.. 142. 178 and 186 

Breckinridge 183 and 184 

Clayton, J. M., Murder of. . .179 and 183 

Clayton, Powell 180, 181 and 182 

Clayton, W. H. H 181 and 182 

Democrats, Acquitted 182 and 183 

Detective, not Called to Testify.. . . 183 

Elected, who was 184 and 186 

Federal Court, Prosecution in 

182 to 184 

Governor Eagle 180, 181 and 183 

Investigating Committee. . . 179 and 186 

McClure, Judge 183 and 184 

Plummersville, Ballot Box 

179, 182, 183, 184 and 185 

Prosecutions 182 to 184 

Record, Mutilation of 183 

Rewards 180, 181 and 184 

Testimony refused 183 and 184 

Vote 183 to 185 

Eaton us. Phelan 142 

Featherstone us. Cats 142, 145 and 146 

Allegations 145 

Cate unseated 146 

Concession by contestant 145 

Perjury 145 and 146 

Vote 146 

Goodrich us. Bullock 142, 166 and 167 

Allegations 166 

Testimony 166 and 167 

Vote 167 

Hill us. Catchings 142 

Kernaghan us. Hooker 142 

Langston us. Venable 142, 161 and 164 

Allegations 161 

Denunciation, of and by Langston. 161 

Mahone 161 

Petersburg 161 to 164 

Testimonv 161 to 164 

Vote 164 

Lawless proceedings 141 and 142 

McDuffle us. Turpin 142, 1.51 and 160 

Burnsville 160 

Cedarville 158 

Church Hill 1.54 

Farmerville 156 

Greensboi'ough 157 

Hale County 157 

Haynesville 155 



PAGE 

FORCE BILL— Continued. 

Lowndesboro 153 

Perry County 160 

St. Clair 155 

Steep Creek 154 

Testimony 151 to 160 

Unauthorized polls. .152, 155, 157 and 160 

Vote 151 to 160 

McGinnis us. Alderson 142, 164 and 166 

Colonizing voters 166 

Counting the vote 165 

Vote 165 and 166 

Miller us. Elliott 142, 167 and 178 

Allegations 167 and 168 

Canvassing census returns. 167 and 168 

Distribution of tickets 176 

Notaries as attorneys 176 

Proceedings in House 177 and 178 

Republican party testifies.. 169 and 176 

Unseating of Elliott 177 and 178 

Vote 167 and 176 

Mudd us. Compton 142, 146 and 1.50 

Allegations 146 

Anne Arundel county 147 and 148 

Calvert county 147 

Compton speech 148 and 149 

Counting the vote 147 

Intimidation 147 and 148 

Unseating Compton, 148 

Vote 147 

Posey us. Parrett 142 

Smith us. Jackson 143 

Threet us. Clarke 150 

Waddill va. Wise 1-50 and 151 

FORCE BILL- 

Address of Northern Democrats .... 69 

Army at polls 43 and 45- 

Blount 43 

Lehlbach 44 

McKinley ; 44 

MoMillin 44 

Revised statutes 42 and 43 

Blocks of five 87 

Complicated 57 

Breckinridge 59 

Buckalew 59 

Flower 58 

Herbert 60 

McCreary 59 

Outhwaite 58 

Turner 59 

Consideration of, (special order) 33 

Cost of 67 

Davenport's methods 71 

Example of jui-y selections 41 

Explanatory (of " suppressed vote.") 84 

" Fat letter " a5 

Federal Courts, Prostitution of.. 

38 and 42 

"Fixed" Juries 39 and 42 

Partisan Commission 41 

History of Bill :;5 

Home Rule .53 and 5d 

Breckinridge 55 

Chipman .54 

(408) 



4@4 



inde:x. 



PAGE 

CONTESTED ELECTIONS-Contlnued. 

Covert 53 

McAdoo 55 

McMillin 56 

Republican Platform 53 

Vaux 55 

Invading Homes , 51 anci 53 

Buckalew 52 

Flower 51 

See "Home Rule" 53 and 56 

See " Knownottiingism " .... 48 and 51 

Knowuothingism 48 and 51 

Chipman 48 

Holman 48 

McAdoo ... 49 

Opposed by Republicans 33 and 38 

Cheadle 36 

Coleman 35 

Ewart 36 

Frank 34 

Lehlbacb 33 

Passage of Bill 66 and 67 

Yea and Nay Vote 66 and 67 

Prosecution of Dudley 88 

Reasons for Bill 84 

See ''Suppressed Vote" 73 

Results of Suppression 80 

Sectionalism 57 

Lehlbacb... 57 

Vaux 57 

Silence as to Bribery 85 

Suppressed Vote 72, 79, 81 and 83 

Hoar's Table 73 

Republican Suppression 73 and 79 

See "New States " (Idaho and 

Wyoming) 131 and 126 

Unconstitutional 60 and 66 

Constitution 60 

Covert 63 

McCreary 62 

Story, .Judge 62 

Tucker 63 

Vaux , 61 

LARCENY OF A STATE^ 

Affidavit (Pennycook) 23 

Canvassing Private Letters 33 

Certificate of Board 31 

Certificate of Clerk 21 and 23 

Illegality Alleged 19 and 21 

Official Returns 22 

Republicans Seated 24 

LABOR LEGISLATION— 

Bills passed 362 

Democratic friendship 364 

First labor committee 364 

History of legislation 363 

Record shown 367 

Republican contract law 363 

Speaker and labor 361, 364. 365 and 368 

NEW STATES- 

Arizona 119, 126 and 130 

Constitutions 119, 120, 126, 13,s and 139 

Disfranchisement 120, 136 and 138 

Female Suffrage 119 and 130 

Gerrymander 121, 126 and 138 

Idaho 119 and 134 

Josephs (speech) 130 and 139 

Montana 119 

Mormonism 110, 120 and 140 

New Mexico 119, 130 and 139 

North Dakota 119 

Opposition to Admission 

119. 127, 128, 136 and 140 

Religious Tests 120, i;W and 140 

Resources Compared 127 and 139 

Smith (speech) 127 and 130 

South Dakota H9 

Springer (speech) 120 and 126 

Tucker -Edmunds Act IJO 

rtah 119 

Washington 119 

Wyoming 119, 134 and 136 



PAGE 

ORIGINAL PACKAGES : 

Decision Supreme Court 393 

Bill passed 393 

Votes 394 to 402 

PARTY PLATFORMS- 

Democratic, 1888 1 

Democratic, 1884 6 

Eepublican, 1888 13 

POPLTLAR VOTE 1888 402 

PUBLIC LANDS. 

Alien landlordism 372 

Domain, Original public 369 

Forfeitures 370 to 373 

Grants 369 

Present Congress 371 

Prosperity, Free lands 373 

REPUBLICAN FAVORITISM FOR 
NATIONAL BANKS- 

Bonds, circulation to par value 351 

Contracting currency 353 

Donation to banks 352 

Perpetuating system 353 

SPECIAL ORDERS- 

Amendment Prevented 319 and 321 

Appropriation Bills, condition 222 ■ 

Debate Allowed by Democrats 

317 and 321 

Debate Prevented 317 ahd 321 

Dilatory Motions 317 

Reed's Thanksgiving 322 

Results of Proceedings 322 

Special Orders, Important Bills 

319 and 321 
SPEAKER— RULES AND RULINGS- 

A crowning outrage 96 

Blaine's opinion 96 

Counting quorums 96 

Any rules better than no rules 102 

Appeal refused 103 

Dictating order of business 103 

Clear usurpation 108 

Taking member from floor 108 

Forced to take back track 99 

Approving journal 99 

Yeas and nays refused 95 and 99 

General parliamentary law 94 

Allowing tellers 95 

Y'eas and nays refused 95 

Refusing tellers 95 

McKinley growls audibly 101 

Appeal refused 101 

Book, reading of, refused 101 

Polite forbearance 100, 103 and 108 

Adjourn, motion refused. . .100 and 104 

Appeal refused 100 and 101 

Consideration, objection to, re- 
fused 101 

Debate refused 100 

Journal approved, unread 104 

Journal, defective 108 

Reed and Randall 194 

Carlisle's mistake 110 

Randall's prophecy 94 and 110 

Reed's misunderstanding 110 

Republican protests HI 

Keed's arrogance HO 

Struble's remarks Ill 

Rogers and Reed 107 

Democrat " cut of " 107 

Recognizing wrong member 107 

Rulings in Langston vs. Venable 113 

Counting absent members. 98, 117 

and 118 

Reducing number of quorum 116 

Suppi'essing motions 113 

Sincerity of Speaker 92, 93 and 94 

Some extraordinary rulings 98 

Absent members counted 98 

Appeal refused 99 

Approving defective Journal 98 

Democrat " cut off " 99 

The Speaker rebuked, 106 



INDEX. 



405 



S PE AKER-Continued 

Approviag Journal 106 

Concealing reference of silver bill. 106 

Transacting business . . . . 91 and 93 

Demoralization of House. . . 91 and 93 

(See '* Special Orders^ 

Voice of Danton 97 

Cutting of reply to questions 97 

Partiality as to dabate 98 

Working under new rules 105 

Amendment (free coinage) refused 105 

Counting quorum 105 

Recognition refused 105 and 106 

SURSIDIES TO SHIP-OWNERS: 

Displaying the flag 330 

Does England subsidize ?..,... .331 to 337 

Codnian 340 

Cost of Bills 349 and 350 

France 338 and 339 

Frye, Quotations 337 

Germany 339 

Echo from England 342 to 344 

Senator Gibson's speech 343 to 344 

History of American Subsidies 

• 344 to 346 

How to restore shipping 341 and 343 

Steady Communication 344 to 346 

SILVER LEGISLATION- 

Act Passed 374 

Ayes and Nays. 376 

Bland, Motion 378 

Bland, Remarks 375 

Demonetization 378 

Free Coinage 390 

Record, Two Parties 391 393 

Votes, see "yeas and nays" 376 jto 

385 387 
TRUSTS— 

Alger, Gen. R. A 333 

Bill Concerning Trusts 323 and 324 

Bland Amendment 333 

Sherman 324 

TARIFF TAXATION— I : 

McKiNLEY Bill 187 and 377 

Administrative Bill 276 

Agricultural Schedule 207 

Binding Twine 316 and 318 

Bounties 197, 198 and 304 

Cotton Bagging 318 and 319 

^Cotton Tie 319 and 220 

Cutlery 253 and 357 

Democratic Principles 187 

Drawback.... 351 and 373 

Export Prices 351 and 273 

Free List 188 

Full Pound of Flesh 196 

Internal Revenue 188 and 197 

Iron and Steel, Cost of 240 and 241 

McKinlsy Bill, Theory of 189 

McMillin, Shows Ipcreases, 190 and 195 
Protection to Farmer, False Pre- 
tense 207 and 225 

Recoprocity 198, 206, 313 and 316 

Reduction of Taxes on Wealthy. . . 377 



PAGE 

TARIFF TAXATION, I— Continued. 

Reduction of Tobacco Tax, 188 and 197 
Republican Objection, Sugar Tax, 306 

Steel Rails 327 and 240 

Sugar 197 and 307 

Summing Un 373 and 377 

Agricultural Imports 211 and 212 

Agricultural Schedule 212 

Binding Twine Prices 217 

Bounties, Cost of 197 

Cutlery, Taxes on 253 and 255 

Exports Compared 301 and 203 

Export Prices 359, 365 and 272 

Free List 188 

Increases of Tax 190 

Labor, Wool etc., in lb. of Cloth, 344, 

246 and 349 

Sheep, Decreased Number 323 

Steel Rails, Labor in, etc., 229, 233, 334 

236,- 237 and 239 

Taxes on Wealthy 277 

Wool, Prices 231 and 333 

Wool, Free and Taxed, Countries... . 330 

Tin 207 

Tin-Plates 335 and 337 

Tobacco— see Interal Revenue. 

Wool 220 and 335 

Woolen Goods 341 and 353 

II— Wages and Prices. 

Advertisements 391 and 394 

Duty of Labor Organizations — — 378 
Effect of Competition in Products. . . 
» 384 and 390 

Increased Prices 390 and 303 

Raw Materials (see Drawbacks) 

rp A "R T TO Q 

English Tariff Taxes 286 

Farmers' Store Accounts 297 and 303 

Taxes on Necessaries 395 and 396 

Wages, Product 381 and 383 

Wages, Protected; Unprotected, In- 
dustries 389 and 390 

Wages, Varying 387 and 388 

Tariff is a Tax 390 and 303 

Wages 378 and 390 

What Regulates Wages 379 and 290 

Women's League, Memorial 278 

III— What the Mills Bill Was— 

Dutiable List 305 and 313 

Free List, Articles Added to.. 303 and 305 
Rates of taxation 305 to 312 

IV— History of Tariff Changes— 

Acts, Names, Dates 313 

Articles in Common Use 313 and 314 

Average Rates 313 

Wool Tariff 315 and 316 

THE VANISHING SURPLUS- 

Appropriations 355 and 360 

Deficiencies 356 

Democratic Economy 354 / 

Excess of Appropriations.... 357 and 360 

New Offices Created 358 

Salaries Increased 359 



CORRECTIONS. 



Page 21, last line next to last paragraph, for " tifteen " read " ten." 

Page 26, fourth line from top, for "July " read "August." 

Page 46, first line, for " confidence " read " conference." 

Page 83, last table is not from speech of Mr. Bunn. 

Page 142, table, Breckinridge's majority " 846,'' instead of "486." 

Page 181, sixth line from top, read " offering" instead of ^'afiixing." 

Page 189, sixth line from bottom, read "diminished" for "discriminated," 

and "nnit" for "unity." 

Page 338, middle of page, " November 29, 1867, Secretary Hunt said " slioiild 

follow "For instance," in third line from top of page. 

406 



H "8.83 



<J ^ - o » 
















o V 





^°-n*.. 






Ju 

"< 































^0' >./^Tr;:'y^ V^-%°' \'^-y- ^ 

%/ "^^-^ ^^/ -^"t %.^' 






.-1°^ 




